April 29 - Inequality - Memos #15
Comments
|
#framing #solutions Chakrabarty draws a distinction between the 'globe' of globalisation and the 'globe' of global warming, taking us away from the political concerns of international justice and to the question of humanity's role on a planet filled with non-humans. However, I am unclear what the implications of Chakrabarty's conclusion are—in particular, Chakrabarty argues that "the conversation [about taking non-humans seriously] will not proceed very far without negotiating the terrain of post-colonial and post-imperial formations of the modern." Is this a claim about the sociopolitical feasibility of seriously considering the moral value of non-humans or of the philosophical tractability of attempting such a conversation without first tackling modernity? The former would be a practical question and hence a debate over empirical evidence, whereas the latter is more a theoretical contention. Either way, I struggle to see the same weightiness that Chakrabarty lends to this issue. Firstly, there have been movements that advocate for extending moral consideration to non-human actors, such as the animal liberation movement. While such beliefs are still not mainstream, arguably the movement has played an important role in increasing awareness of inhumane farming and demand for animal product alternatives, which has bled into policy worldwide. Ironically, much of that demand is driven by human self-interest—for example, animal agriculture is often cited as a major contributor to climate change. However, the byproduct of moving away from animal agriculture will be improved welfare of non-humans, indicating that there is some feasibility around moving away from anthrocentrism even without tackling this issue of modernity. On the other hand, I concede that it remains to be seen whether we will ever morally value non-humans without first understanding our formations of modern society. Secondly, there are other scholars who are similarly trying to negotiate these two understandings of humanity without explicitly addressing modernity, suggesting that attempting to do so is philosophically tractable. For example, in The Land of the Open Graves (2015) De León conceptualizes agency as emerging from interactions between human and non-human actors, which he terms the 'hybrid collectif.' De León applies this hybrid collectif to the political issue of immigration and demonstrates how the hybrid collectif illuminates the role of the U.S. government (specifically, border control) in the deaths of people attempting border crossings, which are conventionally attributed to the non-human cause of the desert's harsh condition. To me, this seems like a reasonable argument for taking non-humans seriously in a political environment even though De León does not seem to negotiate post-colonial and post-imperial conceptions of the modern—if anything, the migrants portrayed in The Land of the Open Graves are bound up in the human-centric concept of emancipation (e.g. reaching the U.S. as a form of freedom), and De León does not explicitly touch upon this. Overall, I remain somewhat dubious of Chakrabarty's claim that humanity is incapable of giving animals political and moral consideration without first negotiating our conceptions of modernity. It seems that there are already efforts underway which do not address the issue Chakrabarty raises—but much of my skepticism may be dispelled once I become clearer on his views.
|
|
This week’s reading titled Global Warming in an Unequal World brought to light the plight of developing countries trying to modernize while facing pressure from already developed countries not to use fossil fuels to do so like they did a few decades prior. In discussions and in some of the readings this week, solutions such as increased government subsidies were brought up as potential policies that could be implemented. However, a case study of China and its race to build green energy infrastructure reveals many holes in this solution often proposed by developed countries for developing countries. China has one of the largest new energy vehicle (NEVs) markets in the world. For example, through 2020, cumulative sales topped 5.5 million units in China. To put this into perspective, China accounts for 42% of the world’s plug-in car fleet and 98% of the world’s electric bus deployment. However, not all is good in China. This surge in NEVs was largely fueled by heavy government subsidization of both NEV manufacturing and development and energy production for China’s energy grid. In recent times, this has resulted in blind investment and unauthorized construction of green energy projects resulting in overcapacity. To combat these issues, China began drastically reducing subsidies for the green energy industry starting in 2019, and since, new problems have arisen. Overcapacity without subsidies to buoy the market will heavily weigh investments into green energy projects like solar and wind and NEV car manufacturers. Without sufficient demand at the higher prices of energy generated by renewable sources, these issues are expected to persist for the long run in China’s energy market, presenting a major headwind to the once-booming renewable energy industry. This provides a valuable lesson for the west and developing countries in facing our climate crisis. Simply investing money and calling for mass subsidization of renewables is not a sufficient solution. If anything, this will increase disparities and setback these developing countries if overcapacity becomes an issue and demand from the public is not enough once subsidies are eliminated. In the west, disposable incomes are enough that creating a renewable energy industry through subsidies can work, but in other countries where people cannot afford more expensive energy, overcapacity is an inevitable outcome. Instead, the world must work together to focus on the real issues. How do we provide the necessary incentives to encourage people of all different financial circumstances to choose renewable energy? Answering this question will allow us to build a renewable energy industry around the world sustainably. One thing is for sure, if the west continues to blame developing countries for using fossil fuels as they once did without providing real solutions other than blind investment and heavy subsidies, then not only are we not going to solve the climate issue, we are going to be setback even further through inequity.
Sources: |
|
#origin #risk Environmental Conservation: An Extension of Colonialism? In “Planetary Crises and the Difficulty of Being Modern,” Professor Chakrabarty discusses globalization and global warming in the context of what he calls the ‘post-colonial period’. However, many modern day environmental conservation attempts actively embody colonialism and colonialist practices. Today, more than 100,000 protected areas exist around the world. Together, they make up more than 15% of the Earth’s total surface. Many of these areas are located in the rainforests of Asia, Africa, and Latin America- lands well acquainted with the advances of colonialism and economic exploitation. These biomes are vital to the Earth’s terrestrial biodiversity. They are also often the ancestral territories of indigenous groups. The conservation of these areas is frequently driven by foreign interest and environmental organizations which consider native inhabitants as obstacles to preserving nature. Even though these indigenous groups have centuries old cultural and spiritual relationships with the areas and are best suited to protect it, their forceful removal is seen as a necessary consequence of environmental protection. Indigenous displacement is not only damaging to their traditional lifestyles and the land, but a brutal and at times deadly process. A 2019 expose on the World Wildlife Fund detailed how WWF funded paramilitary forces and ani-poaching units had shot, murdered, sexually assaulted, tortured, and beat indigenous people with bamboo sticks and their own machetes. That same year, Survival International reported that conservation efforts to set up Congo’s Messok Dja National Park had resulted in malnutrition amongst tribal groups and the subsequent deaths of children. From 2017 through 2018, thousands of Maasai people were left homeless and facing arrest after their homes in the Ngorongoro Crater were “burnt to preserve the region’s ecosystem and attract more people”. Unfortunately, similar unfathomable stories of indigenous abuse abound. This might be somewhat unsurprising considering the contentious legacy of the modern conservation movement. The idea of conservation was conceived in the 1800’s as an instrument of genocide during the American Indian Wars. Yellowstone and Yosemite, two of America’s most infamous national parks and vacation destination, were conserved via the violent removal of indigenous tribes which had occupied the are for more than 10,000 years. This was accomplished under the guise of protecting the wilderness for the future “benefit and enjoyment of the people”. Similar ‘styles’ of environmental conservation has continued in the decades since. However, some hope that change is on the horizon. In 2007, the UN adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which enshrined the right of native peoples to own and control “the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” Since then, many major conservation groups have declared their commitment to “rights-based” conservation- a model of conservation that aims to recognize and include indigenous peoples in the management of protected areas. In Senegal, local Jola fisherman have one more secured stewardship of threatened costal areas. Already, species of fish once considered extinct or nearly extinct are returning to their original habitats. Similarly, in Australia, the state has returned half of the existing reserve lands to indigenous communities. Regardless, this has only happened in a handful of countries. A comprehensive intervention and reversal of historic conservation efforts is imperative.
Works Cited: Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, “Global Warming in an Unequal World: a case of environmental colonialism.” Centre for Science and Environment, 1991. Dipesh Chakrabarty, “Planetary Crises and the Difficulty of Being Modern.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2018. Johnson, Jennifer. “Conservation without Colonialism.” Resilience, Resilience, 22 Sept. 2020, www.resilience.org/stories/2020-09-22/conservation-without-colonialism/. Longo, Fio. “Colonial Conservation - a 'Cycle of Impunity'.” The Ecologist, The Ecologist, 4 Mar. 2020, theecologist.org/2020/feb/14/colonial-conservation-cycle-impunity. VERVE Team. “Is Conservation a New Form of Colonialism?” Medium, Medium, 11 June 2019, medium.com/verve-up/is-conservation-a-new-form-of-colonialism-2e12f697c9b8. Zaitchik, Alexander. “From Conservation to Colonization.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 16 July 2018, foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/16/how-conservation-became-colonialism-environment-indigenous-people-ecuador-mining/. |
|
#policy #solutions Simultaneously, cooperation at a global scale can also be stifled by some of the hypocrisy and inequality that occurs between larger and smaller countries (both of which are crucial to improvement). The United States, for instance, might be towards the forefront of publicizing our desires to mitigate climate issues, yet there is somewhat of a disconnect between this message and many of our present and previous actions. Presumably, citizens of the smaller countries, which contribute very little to climate change yet feel the greatest effects, may naturally find it difficult to really buy in to the discombobulated message that major countries like the US are somewhat ironically attempting to preach. Ultimately, it's going to take a lot more compromise, self-awareness, and pushing aside of irrelevant differences at a global scale to minimize this social inequality between different nations. In achieving this, hopefully we can unify and really begin to tackle the prevalent and concerning issues. |
|
#salience #solutions #inequality #climate |
|
#inequality #origins #framing This is not a memo about a novel, but I will be bringing up two books I have recently read that have really deeply impacted me, and which I think we need to be keeping in mind when discussing topics of inequality and its interrelationship with existential threats. These two books are How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (1971), by Walter Rodney, and Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism (1965), by Kwame Nkrumah. The first of the two traces the sociopolitical development in Africa during the pre-contact, pre-colonial, and colonial periods, and how that affected the development (or rather, the underdevelopment, with respect to the latter two periods) of the African continent. Importantly, Dr. Rodney argues that the development of Western Europe (and later the US) was dependent on the underdevelopment of Africa, by extracting resources without developing indigenous industry, instead selling finished products (made in the metropole) back to the colonized. The second book is a study of the situation throughout the African continent post-independence. In particular, Prime Minister Dr. Nkrumah outlines how most of the natural extractable resources of Africa were controlled by European and American capital, which effectively resulted in what he calls “neo-colonialism”. The colonizing powers did not need to have political power if they still control the resources and the economy. As a result, these former-colonizing, but still imperial powers continued to extract wealth from the African continent. These historical phenomenon are, of course, not solely seen in Africa, but also in the formerly colonized countries of West, South, and Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. I bring it up because any discussion of inequality must start from the fact that the wealth of the Global North is the stolen wealth of the Global South. To bring it home, the wealth of the US, in addition to the former sources, is also a product of the enslavement of Africans and the theft of Indigenous land and the genocide of Indigenous people. With this kind of framing, the question then is how do we move forward to address this inequality? As the readings show, and I mention in my question, we cannot expect for everyone to attain the same level of “modernity” as those in the Global North. However, it would also be firstly immoral and secondly unsustainable for us to shrug our shoulders and quote “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” As we saw in the presentation given by Dr. Sivan Kartha, by really any metric, the US would have to pay the largest share to pay for the damages of climate change given its historical emissions. I would argue that it is imperative that the US and other colonial powers pay reparations for their roles in colonizing the world. But how do we convince these countries, and the citizens of these countries, that there must be this re-balancing of wealth. Also, how do we, in the US, demand the same of the settler-state with respect to giving back the stolen land to Indigenous people and paying reparations to the descendants of African slaves? I don’t know if I have any answers, but any solution that does not address these questions and enact what must be done is no solution. (Also, I haven’t read it so I can’t speak on it much, but The Red Nation recently released The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save Our Earth which is a decolonial and Indigenous response to the Green New Deal.)
|
|
#solutions #framing There's a TED COUNTDOWN talk made by Narun Sivaram - an Indian clean energy expert - that I'd like to tell you about. Entitled 'How India Could Pull Off the World's Most Ambitious Energy Transition,' the talk takes us through how India could lead in the renewable energy sector AND develop hugely as a country. Sivaram outlines three steps to getting there:
Now, these are of course not easy steps, but Sivaram posits that India is in a unique position to lead. Because of its planetary location, the whole country could be powered off of solar panels covering just 10% of India's waste lands. And the wind blows harder during monsoon season, when it's less sunny. On top of all this it costs less to build solar panels in India than it does in anywhere else in the world (significantly cheaper than coal). Sivaram frames this argument in the context of India being a largely clean slate. 70% of India's 2030 infrastructure hasn't even been built yet. And that presents, Sivaram proposes, real opportunity. I say all this because I think sometimes in talking about equity (which is incredibly important) we lose track of the big picture. In order to address climate change, everyone needs to act, and they need to act now. And yes, maybe that's not fair, but there are ways of viewing that action as a real opportunity. Radical sustainability and rapid development can and must go hand in hand.
|
|
#solutions #origin #archaeology References: |
|
#policy #inequality #environment #pandemics #solutions |
|
#Framing #inequality The articles evidence an overwhelming inequality in how international climate norms are constructed. Disguised as “high-minded internationalism”, the burden of climate risk is unfairly placed on poor states with “survival emissions”, while rich states with “luxury emissions” (Agarwal and Narain, 1991) preach the universality of their unsustainable practices (Bergthaller, 2020). Inequality in the norms and beliefs surrounding global resource use is not new. Noting the striking comparisons between Western and Chinese development through history, Bergthaller revealed a similar wave of conversation occurring during the 1800s (Bergthaller, 2020). The readings prompted me to consider the role of capitalism in perpetuating this inequality. A fascinating paper by Ida Danewid highlights how capitalism does not merely worsen pre-existing inequalities, but actually requires the entrenchment of inequalities in order to thrive (Danewid, 2020). This is because unsustainable growth accrued by the capitalist elite, not merely benefits from but actually requires a ‘dispensable class’ whose role is to facilitate exploitation. This applies really powerfully to the imperialist inequalities exposed in Western climate norms. These norms have three distinct elements:
The reason for which the West must perpetuate these norms of inequality is because - as Danewid understands - the process of capitalist accumulation requires inequality. The accumulation of wealth requires the dispossession of wealth from others (See image). This in turn, requires the normative creation of a “group” which can be legitimately and fairly dispossessed. Accepting Danewid’s point, we can see these Western climate norms as a process of legitimation, by which they validate both their own practices, and the subjugation of a “dispensable” group, as a means to sustain their unsustainable growth. This need for capitalism to identify and entrench inequalities in order to sustain its elite is a problem which we can expect to arise in other areas of existential risk, not merely the climate crisis. In other words, we can expect powerful entities to protect their power in the face of existential threats, by establishing norms which place the burden of risk mitigation on a “dispensable” group.
|
|
#policy #solutions #climate In Portugal, carbon emissions have been decreasing due to a switch from fossil fuels to natural gas and renewable energy sources. Policy makers have taken it upon themselves to levy heavy taxes on carbon and elevate fossil fuel prices and promote energy efficiency. Levying heavy taxes on carbon increases the opportunity cost and reduces the incentive to spill more carbon into the atmosphere. Elevating fossil fuel prices significantly reduces the demand for energy and stimulates energy efficiency through methods such as the adoption of renewable energy sources which results in a reduction in emission. Through the methods listed above among many more, Portugal has managed to be one of the 2 developed countries to stay within their permissible limits for carbon dioxide emissions. In order for other developed countries to be as successful as Portugal has been in staying within permissible limits, it is imperative that policy makers start making strides to implement policies that are in favor of everyone. So far, there has been a lack of action on their part due to the lack of incentive for them to take action. It is all about getting elected and re-elected and when you have companies or people that are heavily contributing to our high carbon emissions sponsoring the political candidates election it is very hard for those same political leaders to make laws against their financiers and sponsors. All other countries need to take a look and implement policies like the ones in Portugal and more specifically, it is crucial to examine how their political system works and what allowed them to incentivize policy makers to make such policies. Taxing carbon not only reduces our carbon footprint, it is also a way to boost our economy and GDP, however, for personal reasons, that is not incentive enough for some policy makers. Researchers that Pew Research Center conducted a survey about a year ago that showed that an overwhelming majority of US adults favor actions such as taxing corporations for their carbon emissions and tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars. Now, the question is what are policy makers waiting for to start taking actions against climate change? |
|
#origin #framing
|
|
In this discussion of inequality, other existential threats come to the forefront and are revealed to be more complex. For example, in "Global Warming in an Unequal World" by Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, the authors explore the asynchronous effects of climate change across the globe. In effect, as the authors point out, wealthy countries like the United States are responsible for the vast majority of historical emissions, yet the repercussions of climate change (i.e. flooding, earthquakes, air pollution) fall disproportionally on poorer countries. Because of the distance from the severely impacted countries, people in the United States feel less of an urgency; if, however, the impacts were felt closer to home, there might be a far larger cry for justice. From speaking with friends of mine from Tulane in New Orleans, I have found that there is a general agreement of climate change's risk partially due to the many fatalities in the wake of Hurricane Katrina back in 2005. From this analysis, there comes a perspective that urgency is in many ways tied to direct impact. When we extend this, we can as a result show the inequality in nuclear fallout response. While the ultra-rich and the politically powerful have high class fallout shelters to protect them in the case of global war, the common person has little recourse from an incoming nuclear weapon. In the Cold War for example, drills for students involved hiding under desks with the famous call for "duck and cover" while the Senate practiced retreating to their bunkers. If a nuclear war were to occur, people in bunkers are far more likely to survive. As a result of this inequality in nuclear response, it helps indicate potential ambivalence on the part of our government. Just like how the United States does not treat climate change with the same urgency it would if the effects were felt at home, inequality in nuclear fallout might suggest how those in power do not place the same level of urgency on nuclear as an existential threat given their bunkers. Source: CNN – https://www.cnn.com/style/article/doomsday-luxury-bunkers/index.html Additional Pictures: "Duck and Cover" |
|
#Framing #Origin One of the more interesting ideas that came up in the reading this week was one that Professor Dipesh Chakrabarty mentioned in his article about Planetary Crises and the Difficulty of Being Modern. He discussed that this idea of "Global Warming" (Which i think is an outdated term) has/will exist on every single Planet in our Solar System. This Global Warming, with or without humans will continue to rise. Although I disagree with this quotation that i am about to provide, it is something interesting to think about as we move forward in the process of combatting Climate Change. |
|
#solutions Inequality is baked into our global systems. This is particularly pernicious as countries around the world face the global threat of climate change. Solving this problem could become even more burdensome, as Agarwal and Narain note in “Global Warming in an Unequal World,” because the carbon emitted by the developing world is often vastly overestimated by the developed world. As the two scholars note, one international report estimates that methane emissions are vastly over-counted in developing countries like Brazil and China, as opposed to carbon emissions, which are under-counted and disproportionately emitted in the Global North, including places like the U.S. and Russia. In order to tackle climate change, a proportional response based on country capacity (i.e., financial resources) will be needed. But the problem of global inequality is impacting the world today. It’s happening in the form of the Covid-19 pandemic. India is currently enduring the worst surge in the short history of the Covid-19 crisis. Currently, thousands of Indians are dying, and hundreds of thousands are getting sick as the parliamentary government is offering little in the way of halting the problem by refusing to issue shut-downs and mask mandates. But making the matters worse, the international system is not moving fast enough to save Indian lives and distribute vaccines to the country, preferring to prioritize their own country members. This is happening because the deals that helped rich countries rapidly produce and manufacture vaccines are now broadly making the pandemic worse in low-income countries (like India). Rather than distributing the vaccines purchased by high-income countries to countries that can’t afford them, low-income countries are left without the necessary resources to save lives and stymie a worsening crisis. The main problem here comes down to bilateral agreements. Rich countries made deals with vaccine manufacturers to produce a vaccine and hedged their bets against those vaccines not coming to fruition by buying up millions of future vaccine doses when they came to the market. The problem is that low-income countries couldn’t make those same bets because they don’t have similarly high GDPs. Thus, high-income countries have disproportionate power in protecting their people. The problem here is that it’s not only low-income countries that lose: richer countries have lesser control over the virus as it continues to spread and create new variants because there is not an equal amount of the vaccine in all parts of the globe to stop it. The only way to solve this problem is by issuing multilateral agreements, which pools money and risk placed in manufacturing vaccines from rich and poor countries alike (based on what they can pay), and then equally distributes those vaccines once they come to the market. To be fair, this is occurring right now via Covax, a multilateral agreement sponsored by international organizations like the World Health Organization. Unfortunately, bilateral agreements from rich countries are ruining programs like Covax by undercutting them and helping them acquire a disproportionate number of vaccines. Sadly, things likely won’t get better until rich countries give up their privileged positions and buy completely into Covax, or donate a significant portion of vaccines they bought and distribute them to low-income countries. Those countries, like India, need a functioning multilateral system to ameliorate the flow of the dying.
|
|
In reading Agarwal and Narain’s "Global Warming in an Unequal World, a case of environmental colonialism", I was struck by the inset, "Methane: Problems in estimating a lot of hot air,” as I had just recently read a report on promising advances being made on reducing agricultural methane with bovine nutritional supplements, or in other words, cow burps with seaweed feed. Not only is this new development in bovine nutrition encouraging in providing a quickly realized mitigation in the rapidly rising level of methane emissions but it could also help in bridging inequalities experienced by the developing countries who are also our global partners in fighting the threat of climate change. Many developing countries are dependent upon cattle for subsistence, and are increasingly under pressure to contribute beyond their means towards climate mitigation. Methane reduction, as well as food sustainability and more favorable agricultural strategies, are all potential positive outcomes of this innovation in livestock feed. CO2 may be global enemy number one in our fight against climate change, but we are also under threat from CH4, its evil accomplice. While carbon dioxide “plays a key role in global warming"1, as of 2017 global emissions of methane had risen to their highest recorded level and “…among all the greenhouse gases, methane deserves special attention because of its larger global warming potential.” Methane traps 28 times more heat in the atmosphere, than carbon dioxide over 100 years,2 3 and is estimated to be accountable for at least 25% of today’s warming. And although the effects of carbon emissions are longer term, methane with “more than 80 times the warming power … over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. ...sets the pace for warming in the near term.”4 Methane emissions are up by around 9% since the early 2000’s, with about 50% attributable to anthropogenic activity, at least half of which is related to agriculture.5 6 According to the World Resources Institute, “ruminant livestock were responsible for around half of all agricultural emissions in 2010”, primarily “enteric methane”, the aforementioned cow burps. 7 A UCDavis study experimenting with red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis specifically) has found that cattle given supplements mixed with their feed had a sustained reduction in enteric methane of 58 percent. These results proved consistent over time, (the effects of the seaweed don’t wear off), there was no detectable change in flavor or quality in dairy or meat products, and cattle were overall healthier.8 This reduction in methane may also positively impact manure management, another factor in anthropogenic methane. While transportation of the seaweed and the prospect of over farming our oceans for the vast amounts that would be required for global scale supply may pose obstacles, various aquaculture as well as processing strategies are also being investigated. Potentially, these advances in cultivation will come with the benefit of providing opportunities to “create new economies in impoverished regions”.9 Thus, what’s good for the cows is good for the climate and good for society. Seaweed in cattle feed can provide affordable solutions to developing countries for sustainable food, commercial opportunities, and in meeting GHG mitigation regulations in the necessarily near future. #risk #climate #solutions #opportunity #sustainability #agriculture #GHG
https://www.sciencealert.com/adding-seaweed-to-cattle-feed-could-reduce-methane-production-by Agarwal, Anil and Narain, Sunita. Global Warming in an Unequal World, a case of environmental colonialism. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment, 1991. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Planetary Crises and the Difficulty of Being Modern. Millennium Journal of International Studies 46. 2018 (3): 259–82. Global methane emissions soar to record high. Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences July 15, 2020. Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2020-07-global-methane-emissions-soar-high.html Methane: Emissions increase and it's not good news. Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change. . August 27, 2020. https://phys.org/news/2020-8-methane-emissions-good-news.html Hamburg, Steve. Methane. A crucial opportunity in the climate fight. Environmental Defense Fund. edf.org. 2021. https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-crucial-oportunity-climate-fight Ranganathan,Janet, Waite,R, Searchinger,T, and Hanson,C. How to Sustainably Feed 10 Billion People by 2050, in 21 Charts. World Resources Institute. December 5, 2018. Wri.org. https://wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts. Lewis Mernit, Judith. How Eating Seaweed Can Help Cows to Belch Less Methane. YaleEnvironment360. Updated July 2, 2012. e360.yale.edu https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows |
|
The readings for this week explore environmental colonialism, climate justice issues, and uneven development when it comes to the discussion of climate change and rapidly developing nations. In “Global Warming in an Unequal World” Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain argue that blaming rapidly developing nations such as India and China for the rising temperature of our earth is wrong; it is actually developed nations like the United States, which are consumption-oriented economies, that contribute to the carbon dioxide and methane accumulation in the atmosphere the most. In another class I am taking on political philosophy, we are currently studying the origins of imperialism and the colossal impacts it had on native economies, people, and the trajectory of development going into the future. Environmental colonialism is the effect that imperialists had on the environments of the colonies they imposed themselves upon and disrupted. Fundamental to the degree of wealth and “success” that colonists were able to extract from the country they infiltrated was their ability to extrude natural resources, which inevitably disrupted the land and natural landscape drastically. (The photo I’ve included depicts the height of environmental colonialism and the impact on the environment.) In Hannah Arendt’s book “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” she explores the sociopolitical and economic ramifications that imperialism had on the environments and economies of currently developing nations. Arendt identifies the origin of imperialism as the moment when the capitalist mode of production meets its limitations on further economic expansion within the domestic boundaries of nation, and the ruling class develops the desire to expand their economic power past the bounds of their nation. Arendt explains that while economic structures can easily be expanded because the productivity of humans is unlimited, political structures and policy do not function in the same way and cannot be expanded indefinitely. Thus, law was never extended to the colonized and/or enslaved people but rather limited to the mother nation. This allowed exploitation of people, land, and resources to run rampant. Colonists exploited resources for their personal benefit, and in doing so, severely disrupted the land and natural resources of native areas. Part of the consideration that policymakers and leaders face is whether or not developing nations should have quotas on the amount of emissions they are allowed to produce, and if so, at what amount. Agarwal and Narain explain that developing nations are disproportionately affected by climate change and are actually not to be held accountable as the main cause of climate change because the majority of the damage is actually the result of the consumption-based developed nations. Ultimately, “blaming the victim” is neither a productive nor fair way to go about handling climate change. Rather, when we take a step back and take into account several hundreds of years of history of how colonization impacted the environment and economies of developing nations, we can begin to uncover truths about how nations have been shaped to this day and who is contributing the most to climate change.
|
|
#risk #climate #inequality In Global Warming in an Unequal World, the authors introduce the reader to the idea of environmental colonialism: how, because of political motivations, developed countries (like the United States) blame developing countries for the state of climate change evidenced in the world today. The first flaw in this argument is that developed countries like the United States and EU countries are just as responsible as developing countries (like India and China) for the high levels of global emissions documented today. This is an important point as, therefore, the argument can be made that the burden to cut emissions should actually fall on developed countries as high emissions from these countries coupled with forcing developing countries to cut theirs could exacerbate inequality on a global scale. The first reason that the burden to cut Greenhouse Gas emissions should fall on developed countries is because the argument can be made that developing countries need these emissions to keep pace economically and socially with the rest of the world. Countries like India and China are going through phases of rapid economic expansion, phases that developed countries (like the U.S. and countries in the EU) have already completed. With this type of economic expansion comes the need for vastly increased levels of construction as cities are expanded and technological capabilities are increased. Moreover, a prevailing strategy for economic expansion in these countries is to increase manufacturing processes and promote urban life over an agricultural lifestyle. As a result, cheap sources of energy are needed to power said construction, manufacturing processes, the heating needed for these buildings, the increased need for transportation from urbanization etc. For example, China manufactures half the world’s steel and it potentially accounts for over 10% of its CO2 emissions. Manufacturing/Construction, energy and heat, and transportation as a whole also supply over half of the world’s Greenhouse Gas emissions, so it should be no surprise that countries like China and India are culprits for high emissions. However, countries like the U.S. are not experiencing such a transformative period in their growth, yet still yield emission levels on par with developed countries. Therefore, it makes the most sense to focus the curbing of emissions to developed countries: this would help slow climate change while allowing developing countries to grow their economies, thus reducing global inequality as well. It has also been proven many times that global warming increases global inequality: that is, studies show that not only do poorer countries benefit less from fossil fuel use when compared with wealthier nations, but many of these countries have been harmed significantly by warming associated with the energy consumption of richer countries. Therefore, in order to alleviate the existential threat of climate change and the humanitarian crisis of rising global inequality, wealthier countries should be the focus of emission cutting efforts: this would help slow climate change and allow poorer countries to continue their economic development whilst not being negatively affected by the emissions of richer nations. Image Sources: Other Sources:
|
|
#movie #problem #salience Inequality is often highlighted very dramatically in media, but it also can be used as a metaphor for the inequalities we face in our world today. Fiction has long been used to critique governments and overruling institutions. It can give us a different perspective, even if dramatized, on the problems we face today. For this week, I watched the Hunger Games and Battle Royale. I had previously read the book version of them, during the 2012-2014ish era of dystopian novels. When I saw them on the movie list for this week, I felt that they would be able to tie very well with the inequality we read about in both similar and different ways. Both of these share plots that are very often compared with one another. This is because they both involve placing teenagers in arenas to fight for their lives. This programming is run by the government in order to keep citizens in check. It is used as both a fear mechanism and one to give hope for the winner. At first glance, the inequality that relates to this course is not very obvious because the plot sounds a tad ridiculous. However, there are ample ties to this class. In Battle Royale, the participants are a randomly selected class. One instance of extreme inequality is when they are handed their "weapons" because some students receive useful things such a knife or gun, meanwhile other students get useless items. In the end, they are all expected to compete, whether they have a useful weapon or not. This is an inequality that decides the fate of some of the students. It can be compared to our world today, when we expect every country to fend for themselves with the current pandemic. How is a country that doesn't have resources supposed to fight a disease no one is immune to with no resources? Or it can also be applied to CO2 levels. With climate change, some countries have access to technology that allows for CO2 level reduction or is more environmentally efficient. But the rising CO2 levels is a global problem, not a country specific one (although some countries may pollute more than others). How is a country that is suffering extreme poverty and trying to keep its citizens alive, also supposed to fight to save the environment? In the Hunger Games, the participants are chosen from each of the 12 districts (two from each district for a total of 24). However, the districts have extremely different ways of living. In the districts closer to the capital, teenagers will train for the Hunger Games and volunteer to go. It is seen as a badge of honor to win, and their chances are usually very high. In the districts further from the capital, teenagers are selected and have no previous history of training. In fact, the welfare system offered by the capital allows for a food-stamp-like program that actually places teen's names in the running multiple times. This directly harms children from families of lower income by increasing their chances of going to the Hunger Games and is only really relevant for those in the underprivileged districts. This is a really good example of why such stratified wealth inequality can be harmful to a population. The series builds up to a rebellion against the capitol and some of the districts because people were dying of starvation, lack of medical care and more. This could have all been avoided if there was no hunger games (unrealistic part) but also if the capital actually ensured basic rights and quality of life for all its citizens. Instead, it chose stratified wealth and violence. Overall, I think that these two movies do a great job of highlighting inequality in various ways that can be applied to the readings for this class. Battle Royale Movie: https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Royale-Tatsuya-Fujiwara/dp/B07WCXQSYJ/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=battle+royale&qid=1619650849&s=instant-video&sr=1-2 Source: https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/opinion/jones-hunger-games/index.html
|
|
#framing Capital and OptimismWhat does a UChicago student’s ideal relationship look like? Positive and linear, preferably log scaled. Jokes aside, it’s important to talk about the successes of capital in the 20th and 21st century (pic related), and present a limited defense of capital ability to address equality effectively. The colossal material improvements throughout Asia can be attributed, in large part, to foreign manufacturing demand and the international infrastructure that made such foreign demand accessible. In this sense, capital has played a central role in lifting billions out of poverty in Asia alone. Ironically, it has done so at the cost of millions of manufacturing jobs in the west, which led to a rather notable (and very orange) immune response from the working classes of developed nations. Indeed, by understanding the driving factors which are rapidly deconstructing global inequality, we can clearly see the ways in which those very same factors may be exacerbating local inequality. But it would be naive and counterfactual to dismiss the past half century of capital as entirely divisive. Furthermore, capital seeks stability. Local and geopolitical turmoil are antithetical to profit. It is prescient to critique this reality as presenting a paradoxical dilemma to undeveloped nations (How do we achieve stability without investment? How do we entice investment without stability?), however in every recent case where local political powers have managed to overcome the activation energy required to achieve some modicum of stability, the subsequent catalyzed reaction is exceptionally potent. Consequently (and contradictory to the claims of many critics), capital generally incentivizes geopolitical stability. Capital causes a great deal of pain, the world over. Exploitation is just that, and imagining a future rid of those pains is certainly a productive enterprise. But for the time being, it may just be the best method we have for building that future. |
|
For my memo this week, I watched the movie Elysium which presents Earth and Elysium as two opposite societies, highlighting the inequality between the two. Elysium, like most Blomkamp films I believe, is derived from apartheid South Africa. Like myself, director Neill Blomkamp comes from Johannesburg, South Africa and has directed many movies that take place in South Africa and use inequality as a central theme such as Chappie and District 9. In Elysium, Max DeCosta (played by Matt Damon) is working on Earth in a facility where he one day has a life-threatening accident. In an attempt to save his life and bring down the unequal society that the ultrarich create, called Elysium, Max is faced with the difficulty of acquiring a way to travel to the utopia. The movie highlights the constant struggle that people on Earth face. They live in poverty, on a scorched planet, unable to access medicine without servitude as a payment, and in constant war and divide. South Africa’s apartheid connects to a lot of themes of inequality within the movie. Racial divide in a majority of twenty-first century South Africa split the nation into two, just like Earth and Elysium. This “paradise” of being white in South Africa is highlighted through Elysium: a place where you don’t need to worry about your health, injuries from working, police and law enforcement, and poverty. During the 1940s-1990s, people of any race that wasn’t white were targeted and treated as lesser. Just like the movie depicts the people on Earth, people who weren’t white lived without any medical treatment for injuries, under unsafe living standards, and were hunted if they ever tried to escape the systematic racism of South Africa at the time. Parallel to Elysium, District 9 also presents two populations of people unequally. In District 9, aliens come to Earth and are throw into shanty towns and treated inhumanly (I guess they aren’t human though). They are shot without cause by the authorities, as we see a lot of in our society today, and are forced to never leave their lesser position. During apartheid, the black African communities that lived in cities such as Johannesburg were forced to live in separate shanty towns such as Khayelitsha and were constantly patrolled by police who could essentially do anything they wanted to them including murder, rape, and theft. After watching Elysium, I noticed that the way the movie was structured reminded me a lot of apartheid in South Africa. Through all of the inequalities present in the movie, its similarities to apartheid were obvious. |
|
#framing #policy #salience Reading Agarwal and Narain’s Global Warming in an Unequal World, and its discussion of how over-polluting nations have framed the discussion of reducing emissions as an issue to be borne by developing countries reminded me of a similar topic that I believe closely aligns with this issue. Commercial aviation causes approximately 2.5% of annual global carbon dioxide emissions (though we’ll ignore 2020 for now, since the pandemic made that year’s figures somewhat of an anomaly). For starters, only about 20% of the global population is estimated to be able to afford to fly, and in 2018, only 11% of the global population took a flight at all. More interestingly, it is estimated that 50% of total global aviation emissions are caused by frequent flyers who make up only 1% of the world’s population. If my math is correct, this means that remarkably, 1% of the global population is contributing to 1.25% of annual carbon dioxide emissions — and this is solely through their flights, meaning they surely contribute a vast amount more when other aspects of their life are factored. In addition, flying business class is estimated to generate three-times more emissions per person than flying in economy, meaning that the wealthy are still causing more emissions than is their fair share, even when they are on the same plane as other flyers. Private jets and private aviation are similarly climate-inefficient. And while some airlines (such as the Hungarian budget airline Wizz Air) have made advertisements advocating for the elimination of business class for climate-related reasons, these ignore the fact that flying is inherently bad for the environment, akin to using a band-aid as a solution for a broken pipe. My question here becomes one of policy. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, have floated the idea of progressive taxes that increase the amount of tax a person has to pay as they take more flights. To me, this feels similar to Agarwal and Narain’s mention of over-emitting countries paying under-emitting countries to make up for pollution. Though a good idea in principle, would it be feasible? That is, in the United States at least, frequent flyers are more likely to be wealthy, which in turn means they are more likely to have political connections or incentives. Additionally, airlines—which rely on people flying to make money—would be strongly inclined to oppose any flying disincentive. With this in mind, is there a way to reduce aviation emissions that are exacerbated by global inequality?
Works cited: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollution-global-warming.html |
|
|
|
#origin #climate Social inequality is a very prevalent and important topic in today’s society. As Dipesh Chakrabarty mentions in his Keynote “Planetary Crises and the Difficulty of Being Modern”, there are certain “ethical difficulties of being modern at a time where collective human aspirations carry planetary implications. After reading “Global Warming in an Unequal World: a case of environmental colonialism” by Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, I wanted to learn more about the environmental colonialism and the impact that it has today. According to Agarwal and Narain, the main intention of environmental colonialism is to blame developing countries for global warming while perpetuating the current global inequality in the use of the planet’s resources. The authors also discuss a report from the World Resources Institute (WRI) that pushes for developing countries to share the responsibility for global warming. A consequence of this report is that developing countries might be forced to put brakes on their development through restrictions on coal usage and animal care programs. Therefore, there is a push for Western countries to understand the perspectives of others. To understand the perspectives of others, we must understand the origin of the impact that developed countries have had on our planet. In today’s era, the leading cause of air pollution in the United States comes from motor vehicles. Motor vehicles were first mass-produced in the early 20th century by Henry Ford. These auto emissions have led to an increase in greenhouse gases, which in turn contributes towards global warming. In the Industrial Revolution, the use of coal vastly increased from the years prior, which was used to create new machines and transformed the industry. The consequences of the Industrial Revolution include smog and soot, as well as the release of sulfur and nitrogen into the atmosphere. The pollution affected plants, fish, soil, humans, etc. By understanding the history of developing countries, it is easy to see the lasting impacts of pollution on Earth. Therefore, developing countries should not be blamed for this previous damage to the planet. Despite this, all countries should help as much as they possibly can towards making sure we have a planet to live on for the foreseeable future. This share of responsibility should not be equal, but rather equitable. Those countries who have more resources to supply towards reducing global warming and have contributed more towards prior pollution should have more responsibility. By promoting equity, society can push for change not only for the environment, but also push for societal change towards social equality. The image below shows how much pollution comes from motor vehicles and aircrafts, which are considered to be luxuries today.
Works Cited: |
|
#policy #inequality Agarwal and Narain's paper critiquing the World Resources Institute's report as ecological colonialism brings up a lot of interesting questions that are central to the issue of climate change. The authors begin by calling the WRI's methodology into question, pointing out, for example, that its estimates of deforestation in developing countries are outdated and that it does not adequately recognize how emissions come from different sources (subsistence vs. luxury emissions) and take different forms (methane, carbon dioxide, and CFCs) in developing vs. wealthy nations. They argue, then, that the WRI report does not place enough blame on the developed world. Some of their conclusions are a bit extreme—for example, "It is the production fo carbondioxide [sic] and methane by countries like USA and Japan ... which is entirely responsible for the accumulation of unabsorbed carbondioxide and methane in the atmosphere." I agree with the spirit of their thesis: that calling on nations to bear the burden for emissions reductions in proportion with their current consumption, as opposed to historical consumption or current means, "amount[s] to blaming the victim." But I don't think an emphasis on blame is the appropriate focus. The environmental justice problems endemic to sustainable development are especially difficult given geopolitical dynamics and a tragedy of the commons problem on a global scale. Agarwal and Narain are in good company to assert that wealthy nations are responsible for the vast majority of cumulative carbon emissions, as well as most of the climate change we observe today. But the interest of developing countries in curbing their emissions and moving toward sustainable development arises not solely out of wealthy nations passing on the blame to them. As Bergthaller's comments on China show, developing countries have the most at stake from climate change. China's experience with ecologically intensive agricultural development giving rise to population boom, poverty, and famine bears this out. Now, China's rapid economic development is coupled with serious attention to ecological governance.
A second motivation that Bergthaller alludes to for China to focus on environmental issues is its political legitimacy. I think this is a sort of flip side to the ecological colonialism coin. As Bergthaller notes, China's political system does not conform to Western ideals. But the ability of the CCP to take action on environmental issues that is both swifter and more decisive than is possible in a democratically governed state commands respect. This is economically and politically consequential in an arena where wealthy nations have technology and financial investment to offer developing countries. With an issue like climate change, all the world is watching, which means developing countries have a particular opportunity to demonstrate their strength.
|
|
#policy #solutions (Apologies in advance for the inclusion of numerous graphics, but I feel that it's necessary.) Alright: I've seen something like four tweets in the last month, and a countless number on historical aggregate, that say something like "every world map looks the same." Here is what this notion refers to:
I bring this up for this class because of Agarwal and Narain's piece on global warming in an unequal world. Not surprisingly, the article spends most of its time running through historical data, featuring new per-capita calculations meant to express the fallacy behind the accusations that the U.S. has levied against China, India, and other developing nations. In terms of responding to these assertions, the paper does an incredibly good job of shooting them all down and showing the extent to which the U.S. is at fault. But what the article doesn't do, and what the international community isn't doing, is making targeted statements at the United States calling us to lead the action and drastically reduce waste in every aspect of our lives. I'm honestly quite tired of the diplomacy--of the global calls to action whereby everyone must have a stake in immediate change. I'd really like to know the outcome of if the international policy community approached this game-theoretically, like they were entering into a one-on-one negotiation or haggle over the price of a product. In these situations, you should almost always ask for more than you want with the goal of receiving your target amount. In reality, the climate accords that we've talked about set the bare minimum as targets for EVERY participating country, and the U.S. rarely even ratifies these. Honestly, it's time for a targeted approach against the United States. Even if you ignore everything I just said, I'm truly curious about the near future. At what point do countries form alliances and begin to impose sanctions on the United States specifically? We are the biggest domino that refuses to fall. And honestly, it's embarrassing. I would like to know about the possibility of this going forward. With true collective action from a number of countries specifically targeting the United States, what is the worst that can happen? Is it any worse than impending doom, which is the trajectory we are on? |
|
#movie “Planet of the Apes” is an American sci-fi film that revolves around an astronaut crew that crashes on an unknown planet in the year 3978. The crew estimate that they are on a planet 320 light years away from Earth and have to face the fact that time has wiped away everything they once knew. It is not long until the crew stumbles upon the society inhabiting this planet in which apes have evolved to be the ruling species and humans are the inferior, animal class. This human vs. ape allegory has largely been taken to represent a “liberal thought experiment” in race -- what if the white man were oppressed? Although the message was meant to make viewers reflect and empathize with the way minorities are treated in real life, it was also met with backlash in its execution. In his review of the 2011 “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” Ed Gonzalez says of the original, “That sly allegory was hatefully perverted by white supremacists, even deemed derogatory by some in the Black Power movement, but its provocation is unmistakable as one directed against the forces of institutionalized racism.” Released in 1968, the themes of the film strongly echoe a society dealing with race conflicts, the civil rights movement being in full swing by that point. On the one hand, one could argue that Taylor, the main astronaut’s, enslavement portrayed the fear that older generations, who grew up with the conservatism of the 50’s, felt in the face of a new eagerness to uproot “traditional ways.” In this sense, the casting of Charlton Heston as Taylor is particularly interesting. Heston had already established himself a career as a traditional, macho, alpha male hero in his previous roles, and was even presented with a “damsel in distress” in this one (Nova). However, it is the twist ending that makes all the difference. Throughout the movie, the apes play a clear antagonist role to humans, but when it is revealed that the planet Taylor and his crew crashed on really is a futuristic Earth, it becomes clear that humans had in fact led to their own downfall, which puts their value as the “hero” of the movie into question. Are the apes truly villains, or have they created a social order that protects them from man and the inevitable destruction man brings? The film closes with a now famous scene of Taylor coming upon a decrepit Statue of Liberty, realizing, “Oh my God. I’m back. I’m home. All the time it was – We finally really did it! You maniacs! You blew it up! Oh, damn you! God damn you to hell!” sources: https://theconversation.com/thought-youd-sussed-out-planet-of-the-apes-think-again-29352
|
|
This week's readings about the inequality surrounding climate change, particularly the "Global Warming in an Unequal World: a case of environmental colonialism", provided a lot along the lines of globalization and inequality. I thought, however, that this particular article did not really discuss the other ways that first world countries are contributing to this inequality. The article highlights how these countries wish to stop, or reduce, the emissions from the full-blown industrialization within developing countries without looking to really minimize their own first. The article does not mention, however, how many of these countries are used as trash sites for the garbage coming from the first world. The boom of technical innovation has left 50 million tons of e-waste (last year alone), that can seriously pollute the environment, contaminating the water, land, and air. Many developing countries are used as dump sites for this e-waste as developed countries send over this garbage under the false pretense of "used goods" and "recycling", even though this waste is unusable (https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/toxic-e-waste-dumped-in-poor-nations-says-united-nations). Another example of this is the oil industry asking the US to pressure Kenya into changing its stance against plastic waste, which is what the country was praised for in their efforts to stop the manufacturing and import of plastic bags to limit a major source of plastic waste (https://apnews.com/article/africa-global-trade-international-news-us-news-20d8d72a8e32a2f136ef7ca3d2bcaec3). The dumping of other countries' waste into poorer countries just continues to worsen the cycle since then these countries will have to expend even more energy to manage this waste that is not even their own, thus increasing carbon emissions and environmental pollutants. If these richer countries were to lessen their own waste and recycle it through the proper means rather than dumping it in other countries, then this would do a lot more in the long-run for climate change instead of blaming it on the poorer countries becoming more industrialized. It seems that to really address the problem of climate change, both inequality within countries and among the globe needs to be examined and remedied in order for the efforts to combat climate change to be effective. As it stands, it just seems like countries are blaming others and pushing their problems and waste to other places to take care of. |
|
#framing This response is related to my question here. One of the primary roles of governments is to regulate socioeconomic pressures that harm social mobility, human rights, or threaten the continued stability of a country (some governments are particularly egregious on the last one). Wealth redistribution, in that way, is a very clear responsibility a government has for its people. But what about the world? How does a government reconcile its duty to its citizens' interests---the people who, generally speaking, elect their leaders---and to the dignity of mankind---people not within the governments' constituencies. Market globalization is frequently cited as a major contributor to climate emissions and to wealth inequality. Well-endowed nations can exploit cheap markets and poor citizens to manufacture goods at low prices, which are shipped and consumed by those who can afford them. However, globalization has fostered a rennaissance in connectivity and technology. Continents lifted out of poverty. Billions of people whose parents only a few generations before could only dream of having college graduates in their families. Yet, the increasing connections between peoples and countries makes the challenges associated with wealth inequality doubly difficult as increasing resource production increases emissions. The nature of governance is that someone has to "lose out" for things to move forward. It's the same with climate change and wealth inequality as it is in economics' "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." In that veign, it's not enough to believe that enlightened self-interest and the moral compunction "the West" feels towards the developing world is enough to adress fundamental problems responsible for its own wealth, responsible particularly for the wealth of its voters and citizens. It would be a logical conclusion to the ills of the century, given our trajectory towards globalization, to develop binding international institutions---a sort of world government with the mandate to alleviate inequality and address the international fallout from climate change. Because wealth inequality is systematic, its effects permeate every aspect of modern life: politics, culture, language, and especially economics. As it stands now, global issues cannot be resolved through dialogue and finger-wagging. I don't see any alternatives based in our current international order of national sovereignty, "dialogue," and finger-wagging. Issues that involve all governments cannot be solved by competition and antagonism. |
|
#framing #policy Why Developing Countries Need To Be Present in Combating Climate Change Agarwal and Narain's argument on the irresponsibility in blaming developing countries for global warming devastations is certainly essential to recognize. I think we can all agree that there is significant inequality in the world that is underscored when discussing global warming. However, I do not believe the approach of mainly relying on developed nations to take the first steps to resolve climate change will result in a positive change. The authors emphasized that they disagreed with the IEA when it made stated, "[t]he levels of coal use predicted for India and China could have been a very dramatic environmental impact indeed. If developing countries keep to the sort of forecasts of coal consumption now being bandied about, they would negate any effort by Western countries to control emissions of greenhouse gases." They deemed this language as irresponsible, yet throughout the paper, they have made similarly bold claims as in "[a]s their [China's] consumption is bound to increase, the dream of every Chinese to own a refrigerator, is being described as a global curse" [1] Statements like these perpetuate blame of global warming in an exaggerated fashion (the very thing the authors believe should not happen). They create a me vs. them attitude that will not help solve a problem that impacts the entire planet. Unlike wealthy nations, developing countries are certainly not contributing as much to global warming. However, if we continue to assign blame in terms of wealth, we will not be closer to achieving a solution to the devastating effects of global warming. We are no longer at a point in human civilization at which nations have the luxury to use unlimited resources in order to develop further. What will be the state of Earth if we continue to say that developing nations should not have to worry about climate change initiatives since they are not "responsible for it?" At the end of the day, every part of the Earth will be impacted by climate change. Therefore, instead of removing developing nations from these conversations, we need to include them. In fact, since these very nations will suffer the most from the effects of climate change, they should be focused on creating greener initiatives. The goal should be that every country, whether they have contributed to climate change or not, is implementing sustainable practices to succeed in a world in which the environment is being destroyed. In fact, many developing countries are already taking this initiative. Morocco, for instance, houses the world's largest solar power plant. The returns on investment are significant because it has created a cleaner environment, new industries, and jobs [2]. Therefore, although seemingly counterintuitive, we need to encourage developing countries to take greener initiatives. From the view of space, we cannot see wealthy and developing nations. We cannot see America vs. the rest of the world. We can only see a dot-the Earth. Regardless of who contributed the most to the mess of the environment, we all live on this planet. It is this planet, in its entirety, that will survive from the effects of climate change or fall from it.
[1] Agarwal, Anil and Narain, Sunita. "Global Warming In An Unequal World." Centre for Science and Environment. 1996. |
|
#risk #solutions #salience |
|
This week’s readings consistently reminded me of science fiction. Specifically, in Chakrabarty, Planetary Crises and the Difficulty of Being Modern he puts forth two ideas. The first is that when we think of crises like climate change, we think of how it will affect “us”, but that “us” does not include the planet, or the animals that live on it, rather it simply includes humans, and even then at times that vision is limited to a select few. The second is the idea that we have birthed a version of modernism that is inaccessible to everyone, essentially designed for a select few. Yet the terrible irony is that this vision of modernity has become prized by many, and many seek it. In multiple science fiction novels that I have read, from Ian M. Banks novels to Ursula K. Le Guin, a line can be drawn to distinguish different societies in those books. Some choose to embrace the planets they live on, and rather than work against the planet's ecosystem. Chakrabarty clearly places humanity in the latter. I think the most fascinating aspect is our blindpsot to our very own behavior. Perhaps it’s just selection bias, but when I read stories of societies who jump from planet to planet harvesting the energy or resources I hardly view them in a positive light. I can’t really think of anyone that would read about societies that resemble bloodsuckers and view them in a positive light, so it is astounding to me that we ignore our very own mindset. Furthermore, in films like Interstellar or any number of science fiction stories, we see a trope. Either a future or “advanced” society returns to warn of the dangers of the developmental path they chose. The US and various European Nations holding China and India to the same standards for climate change feels almost the same. It’s intuitive and maybe even justified that the US and Europe would want China and India to help work towards keeping our planet from spinning violently out of control. Yet at the same time, it is unfair to expect that China and India would not follow the easy path to the very version of modernity that the US and Europe have purveyed and benefited from. I do not have solution to these problems, but thought it was interesting to juxtapose these problems to those we see in the stories we tell ourselves.
|
|
#origin #risk #solutions The biggest problem mentioned in my previous paragraph remains to be the environmental collapse that will have disproportionate impacts on the global south, and the global poor. In the reading from Agarwal, they stress the importance of global coordination in solving these existential threats. Given the weakness of the United Nations as a whole, it seems unlikely that global government is something we can hope to achieve in the near future. If these equatorial regions become uninhabitable in the near future thanks to global warming, then we might be faced with this reality sooner than expected. The United States already has a migrant crisis at its southern border from refugees transiting thousands of miles to find cooler weather and a better lifestyle. Perhaps open borders can be a way to transition civilization into a new era where countries can compete for citizen’s with higher minimum wages, where everyone benefits. If civilization is bound by tribalist nation-states, then perhaps global revolt against the wealthy is inevitable.
|
|
#framing Many of the readings for this week tackled how environmental activism can intertwine with neo-colonialism. As the globe has become more interconnected, multi-national conglomerates (primarily western conglomerates) have emerged as both the clear beneficiaries of "dirty" energy and the ones who are most adamantly opposed to change. While we can discuss the rampant inequality in consumption on a class basis, the consumption of these conglomerates is at a scale that we just cannot comprehend as individuals. Economically, we can view these companies as not paying all their costs of doing business, i.e. they aren't paying the full cost of pollution of CO2 emissions. Here different credits, taxes, and permits can alleviate some of these costs. However, as we have already witnessed, these companies have no issue exporting these negative externalities to countries where their bank accounts are even more influential than in the U.S. Without drastic shifts, these companies will continue to exploit the environment and the global south. This is where economic and moral thinking intersect. While economic policies can alleviate malpractice, how long will we attempt to reform these bad actors until we realize that they just cost more than they provide? If a companies entire business model relies on exploitation what reforms could be adequate? No business would ever admit that it is inherently unsustainable so how can we tell? How do we compare the subsistence CO2 emissions of farmers and that of institutions? In "Sharing a crucial global common," Narain and Agarwal suggest that the "vital global common (the earth's yearly CO2 bank) should be shared equally on a per capita basis." Here we can begin to compare the additional CO2 emissions from Amazon's decision to set the default from 2 days shipping to 1 day, from the methane produced by cattle farmers. One stems from overconsumption, the other from necessary consumption.
|
|
#origin Indian religions have a strange relationship with rivers. Mosques, Gurudwaras, and Temples use and worship rivers in contradictory ways. A simple example of this contradiction is the act of offering flowers to deities. Floral offerings are taken from home to the religious hubs and then returned to individual shrines at home. As instructed by the various religions, people dispose of these flowers in rivers. There are 23,000 temples in New Delhi alone that create 20,000 kg of waste from floral offerings. 80% of this waste ends up rotting in the nearby, religiously significant Yamuna river (pictured below). Indian rivers play a critical role for the 290 million people in poverty. Amid the COVID pandemic, more than 50% of people in India lack access to potable water. In addition, these rivers siphon off much-needed government funds in the form of river cleaning projects. The Indian government supposedly spent USD 27 billion on river cleaning projects in Delhi alone. I believe that religion is partly responsible for India’s water and air pollution crises. This week’s reading forced me to think about the inequity in the battle against climate change. Thinking deeply about the case study of India made me sceptical of the value of global solutions that are to be applied to every country regardless of their background. There needs to be more of a global conversation about more heterogenous, tailored solutions, such as the altering of the aforementioned practices in India that are exacerbating inequality and undeniably impacting the Anthropocene.
Sources: |
|
#solutions #salience Leaving the Earth? I feel that beyond all the topics we discuss in class (cyber security, nuclear threat etc.) the threat of environmental peril and the destruction of global warming is what I find to be the most inevitable – it’s the threat that makes me most assuredly and depressingly say we are doomed. And there is a wide range of articles that stipulate different reasons as to why we will one day have to leave Earth and vacate to some other planet. Some present this possibility as more of a pure hypothetical imaginary, others as an imperative or inevitability. Other articles argue we will never live on an exoplanet and never leave earth, at least not all of humanity. Nobel laureate Michel Mayor, astrophysicist who co-received the award in 2019, said even if we eventually sent people to Mars within the next 50 years, he’d be “very surprised if humanity made it to the orbit of Jupiter within the next few centuries”. He felt the need to “kill all statements that say ‘OK we will go to a livable planet if one day life is not possible on Earth’. And I agree that the enduring discourse that we can casually abandon our home planet for some other one if we mess it up so thoroughly it’s no longer sustainable is folly as well as dangerous (it can encourage complacency). However, I wanted to engage with this idea of us leaving the Earth and colonizing an exoplanet through the lens of inequality. Much like we’ve found in the readings this week, global warming is a problem that has been contributed to at varying levels by nation. Furthermore, the ensuing fight to stop climate change and reduce emissions is not one that should be divvied up without consideration for each planet’s contribution to the problem. Developing countries have contributed subsequently more and there is something deeply unfair and seriously egregious in forcing developing countries to engage in equal clean up. While the speculation that we could one day evacuate to an exoplanet has been deemed as wishful thinking, it has also been posited by so many as imperative, inevitable, and necessary for humanity’s survival. This made me consider, if we left to go to space how would inequality manifest? Well, firstly, would it be a global evacuation where all countries combine their out of space resources to evacuate? Or would it be national? Because if only developed countries have the space industry and infrastructure to send people to outerspace, perhaps it is only those countries that will escape Earth. Much of sci-fi media depicts future inequality in relation to socio-economic status (i.e. the wealthy get to leave while the poor are left), but what about considering the entire international body? Are exoplanets only the homes of developed countries? Who can actually make it to space and is there a future where entire countries are left out of space colonization? It’s definitely interesting to consider the ways that space colonization as a solution to climate change, however unlikely it may be, would manifest various inequitable outcomes.
Sources: |
|
#origins #framing |
|
I had a strong feeling about this week's reading by Agarwal's and Narain's book on environmental equity. When people normally would think developing countries are likely to share more blame for global warming due to excessive carbon emissions and outdated environmental awareness. This book supports the idea that developing countries don't share the blame for environmental degradation based on science. I totally agree with the author on this point. As someone who comes from a developing country(China), developing countries also make their own effect to protect our Earth. For example, China has been establishing strict environmental protection policies in recent years. I have seen many small factories closed due to excessive carbon emissions. Moreover, according to the Paris agreement(a legally binding international treaty on climate change) in 2015, China promised that its emissions will reach a maximum around 2030. Surprisingly, China also promised that China will reach "carbon neutrality" by 2060 which means that China's net carbon emissions will reach zero by then. The Paris agreement gives us a great example of dealing with climate change issues in between countries. Earth's environment should be taken care of by all countries, no matter you are a developing or developed country. I have taken a planet science course, and I had some background knowledge about carbon distribution and emission data. The earth's air contains less than 0.03% carbon dioxide, and the content has remained basically constant for a long period of time in the past. 80% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from the respiration of people, animals, and plants, and 20% comes from the combustion of fuel. So It is reasonable to say, human activities have a huge impact on carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. I think there are some ways to reduce the emission of carbon in theory. The image below shows the carbon emission percentage in different countries: |
|
#movie Snowpiercer was an indelible look at not only the dangers of social inequality, but also global climate change, both of which are issues heavily discussed this week in the readings. Snowpiercer begins with a haunting warning regarding geoengineering - politicians are heard desperately searching for an answer to rising global temperatures (without mentioning limiting carbon emissions) and settle on releasing a new chemical into the atmosphere that evidently had devestating effects on the climate - cooling the globe to a temperature below what people could survive on, which led to the Snowpiercer - a train that carries some of the last remnants of humanity. This raises an important point about geoengineering; namely, there is no way to run an experiment on a geoengineering invention before "testing" it on our own planet. |
|
#framing #policy #inequality #climate Sources:
|
|
#origin #salience This week we read about inequality on climate change and industrial developments. It has always been discussed through international panels while the developed countries criticizing the developing countries for dismissing a huge amount of greenhouse gases. Nowadays, information and data are easier to access and display. Therefore, people love contents that could bring straight visual impacts such as comparison plots and shocking pictures. However, while people insist on their rational thinking about the current facts, they ignored the history that objectively happened. The developed countries used over 100 years to achieve their modern lifestyle, and during this progress, London was the City of Fog, Hudson River was a grey line. If we had PM2.5 sensors in the 1900s, I assume the annual average PM2.5 concentration in London would have been way higher than in Beijing or Shanghai in the 2010s. As Chakrabarty mentioned, the developed world was intangibly creating consensus inequality for developing countries to modernize themselves. They argued that the world has been suffering climate change and global warming but disregard their "contributions". On the other hand, governments of western countries such as which of the United States are very good at setting double standards for countries that they treated as potential rivals. Recently, Japan said that it would start discharging treated radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean within two years. While the neighbor of Japan such as China and Korea called the decision "extremely irresponsible”, the US government supported the Japanese government to dump the radioactive water. Greenpeace nuclear specialist Shaun Burnie said that "Deliberately discharging and contaminating the Pacific Ocean after decades of contamination already from the nuclear industry and nuclear weapons testing is just not acceptable". Fifteen countries and regions are still restricting Japanese agricultural and fishery products due to the nuclear crisis including the United States, but at the same time, they left the consequences of dump alone. |
|
#framing |
|
A Deep Hypocrisy #framing #origin The World Research Institute contends that developing countries contribute almost half the greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming and that almost half of the developing world share comes from Brazil. Despite the allegations from the WRI, Brazil has strongly objected these claims, reasoning that the vast majority of their carbon dioxide emissions are from deforestation and that the database for how deforestation effects climate change is undeveloped and unreliable compared to the database for fossil related climate change, leading to a significant overestimation of Brazil's carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation. Another point that I want to briefly discuss, that I do not think has been touched upon in our readings is the fact that 70% of the world's population lives in developing countries as per the United Nations, and yet, as per the global development chart below, only 63% of annual emissions come from developing countries. This data implies that 30% of the world lives in a developed country and that 37% of the world's emission come from developing countries - more time should be spent looking internally rather than externally from the perspective of developed countries. Inspired by Global Warming in an Unequal World, the environmental colonialism experienced by countries like Brazil underscores the deep hypocrisy of developed nations that went through an industrial era themselves at different points in time and that are only seeing a trend of decreasing emissions as a result of the efficiencies of their machinery and general ecological practices. This is why developed countries' calling out of developing countries, with only surface level details, is wholly disingenuous. As seen in the below figure of US C02 emissions, from the mid 1980s until the late 2000s, the United States saw consistent increasing C02 emissions, with a more recent trend over the last decade of consistently decreasing C02 emissions brought on by the affordability of renewable energy sources made possible by our muilti-trillion dollar core infrastructure. If I were able to get a dataset like this that dated back to the Industrialization Era of post-Civil War United States, it would be abundantly clear that the United States' trend of a consistent increase in C02 emissions has lasted for over 140+ years. The point that I am trying to hammer home here is that every developed country can only afford the multi-trillion dollar infrastructure that is necessary to have end-to-end and dependable renewable energy sources because they are able to tax a population with a median household income of at least $40,000. Since the condition of possibility for income generation on a population-wide scale of this magnitude is industrialization (history has shown this ex: China, India, Indonesia etc.), developed countries cannot criticize developing countries for doing what they should do - develop. One interesting question that this observation inspired me to address was: "What is the origin of resource inequality?" Though this question strikes philosophical chords with Jean Jacques Rousseau's Origin of Inequality - the corrupted nature of humans - I think the answer to this question is rooted in the fact that resource inequality is the externality of humans' ability to reason. Since humans can reason, they have preferences and since they have preferences they have a rational self-interest in being greedy when it suits them best. This model of behavior seems to be on pretty good display by developed countries.
|
|
#policy #solutions #framing You Proved Their Point! A SOTU Analysis Perhaps it may be a little bit late in the night, but having just watched Biden’s State of the Union address, I found the reference to the US climate conference, and the justification for the US responsibility to enter multinational cooperation on climate change, offly chilling having read this week’s readings. In reference to climate change, Biden did not discuss the disproportionate strain the US places on the environment. Rather, he referenced the figure that only 15% of total carbon emissions come from the US. This figure was cited as a justification to region the Paris climate accord, in addition to the Biden administration’s upcoming climate conference, as 85% of the world makes up the rest of the emissions. Biden said that (paraphrasing) “even if the US were to go completely carbon neutral, the other 85% of emissions” will wreak havoc on the environment. Claims such as this one paint the US as the climate savior, as the US is spending time and resources not only to clean up its own emissions, but to convince the rest of the world to follow in our model example. The presentation of the 15% figure in this context goes to the root of the argument Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain present in “Global Warming in an Unequal World”. The authors criticize reports such as the WRI climate report, which present statistics in such a way as to overstate the impact of “developing” countries, such as India, on the climate crisis, by looking at absolute rather than per-capita figures. Such reports also oftentimes neglect the per-capita allowances of the global carbon and methane sinks, as the authors note. In Biden’s SOTU, the 15% figure is not accompanied by the face that the US makes up only 5% of the US population. Including that relevant piece of information can help highlight the disproportionate impact the US has on exceeding the per-capita available buffer in offset emissions due to natural carbon and methane sinks. Multinational agreements are essential in order to combat the climate crisis, and the Biden administration is taking great strides to develop such corporations. However, if the US wishes to seek the most plausible and effective route to limit the climate crisis, it must acknowledge its incredibly disproportionate contributions, and the context of the per-capita allowances of our global carbon sink. In addition, Biden’s arguments for investing in solar panels in order to compete with China was an interesting anecdote in the context of Hannes Bergthaller’s “Thoughts on Asia and the Anthropocene”. Bergthaller discusses the shifting socioeconomic dynamics that took place globally over the past decades, and the rapid expansion of the global middle class. Specifically, Bergthaller presents the advancements seen in Asia. With regard to anthropocene climate change, Biden presented solar panels as a necessary contribution to fight climate change, and asserted such panels should “be made in the USA instead of Beijing”. Within the context of the Asian developments explored by Bergthaller, this anecdote by Biden sheds light on the amazing expansion China has witnessed, and its presence as a global power in the industries of the future - such as solar power.
|
|
#policy #solutions Throughout my readings this week, specifically ‘Global Warming in an Unequal World’ by Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, it became even more clear to me that the United States plays a negatively disproportionate role when it comes to climate change and carbon emissions. Having experienced the past four years with Donald Trump as president, it became incredibly clear that the environment was nowhere near the forefront of issues in the White House. Now, only 100 days into the Biden administration, the United States has not only begun to change its domestic policy to show its awareness of this issue, but it has begun to make massive strides on an international level as well. This was something that has been highly critiqued of the US as many have viewed the country’s goals in fighting climate change on an international level much less likely considering the country’s inability to combat climate change domestically. Just this week, President Biden committed to “cut US emissions at least in half by 2030” as well as to “double annual public climate financing development to developing countries by 2024”. Although President Biden is not directly admitting to the unequal amounts the United States has contributed to carbon emissions (Emission of 26 percent of the carbon dioxide with only 4.73 percent of the world’s population), he is attempting to prove to the international community that the United States is once again serious about fighting climate change. Put perfectly, this “is clearly to regain the moral high ground that Trump ceded” according to Andrew Sheng in his article titled Biden’s Star Trek on Climate Change. Regardless of the impact that Donald Trump left on the United States internationally, these ambitious goals set by Biden at the Global Climate Summit this past week work to erase a long-held sentiment that the United States would be unwilling to help contribute its fair share regarding rising emission levels. This is a key point that is discussed in the ‘Global Warming in an Unequal World’ reading especially. Dating back to President Bush’s presidency when this was written, Americans (including former President Bush) viewed global warming merely as a myth. Thankfully, this sentiment has continued to dwindle away as the effects of climate change and how it effects other countries continue to become clearer.
https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/joe-biden%C2%92s-star-trek-climate-change-1502965015.html |
|
#framing #solutions The readings this week highlight some of the paradoxes associated with addressing existential risks in a complex and unequal world. Climate change threatens all of humanity in the long-term, but it also threatens a lot of humanity in the short-term (for example, those in developing countries who will be disproportionately affected by desertification, problems accessing clean drinking water, forced migration due to rising sea levels, etc). Globalization and the economic benefits associated with it may incentivize the development of clean energy technologies, but the tools to develop those technologies are primarily located in firms in advanced industrialized economies, which can then sell those same technologies to developing countries in an effort to make them “greener”. A nuclear exchange between two nuclear-armed states would impose enormous costs not only those two warring adversaries, but research has shown that even a small nuclear exchange could create climatic effects for the entire planet, potentially causing food shortages and famine for years. How do we address these global challenges in such an unequal and fractured international community? The readings from this week may provide some answers. Hannes Bergthaller looks at what role Asia might play in addressing these global issues in “Thoughts on Asia and the Anthropocene” in which he recognizes “Asia plays a crucial role in the social and ecological dynamics that are shaping our geo-historical moment.” Similarly, Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain recognized in 1991 that shifting the entire burden for addressing climate change onto the developing world is deeply unfair for many reasons, including the fact that developed countries have overwhelmingly contributed the most greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Telling the (oftentimes impoverished) populations in the developing world that they don’t have a right to modern conveniences like cars or air conditioning because the environment has reached its breaking point isn’t going to persuade many people to become environmentalists. While these developing countries surely have a role to play, it’s also important to recognize they don’t need to develop their economies the exact same way the West did: indeed, if they can free their economies from the carbon-dependent development paths pioneered by the advanced industrialized economies of the West, they will already be one step ahead of the countries struggling to decarbonize and move away from the dirty 20th century modes of production. Building international cooperation seems like the only way to achieve this goal, and agreements like the Paris Agreement— while voluntary and without an enforcement mechanism— is likely the only path forward for the foreseeable future. Below: a cartogram showing total CO2 emissions by country in 2015 (source)
|
|
#framing In this week’s readings, I appreciated the authors’ different perspectives on social inequality through the lens of one of the most prominent human existential threats: climate change. Though Chakrabarty, Agarwal and Narain, and Berghthaller all provide useful insight on inequality with topics of environmental colonialism and the Anthropocene, I believe another way to frame this problem is through the various ‘solutions’ to climate disasters and how they can embody social inequality. One project I am specifically thinking about is the colonization of Mars. Elon Musk’s company, SpaceX, is planning to send 1 million people to Mars by 2050 to create a permanent human settlement, claiming that “the important thing is that we establish Mars as a self-sustaining civilization” (Duffy). Considering climate predictions and Earth's potential for an inhospitable future, this plan to move some humans to another planet is unsettling. Though there is a lot to be said about the right and entitlement that humans feel to colonize another planet, there is also a component of inequality that a project like this would perpetuate; namely, the creation of a Martian human settlement will have devastating class consequences. Elon Musk, in trying to prove that his Mars civilization project isn’t just for the rich, claims that a ticket to Mars should eventually cost under $500,000 (Clifford). He is possibly forgetting that the cost for moving a family of four would still add to around 2 million dollars-- an amount most people on Earth will never see in their lifetimes. With these plans, Musk seems to create a utopian idea that colonizing Mars will be a great adventure and will be accessible enough so that it won’t worsen class inequality, but this seems extremely tone deaf. When the time comes, Martian settlements will be reserved for the richest people and if Musk’s dream of a ‘self-sustaining civilization’ becomes a reality, it is only imaginable what will happen to the poorest people left back on Earth. In understanding the existential nature of social inequality, it is vital to take a step back from the current manifestations of crises and conflict on Earth and reflect on solution projects like SpaceX, questioning why they’re really happening and who will benefit. Climate change is inevitably one of the largest threats to human civilization, and the idea that some can get a ‘re-do’ now that humans are feeling the real-time effects of global warming should be considered very heavily. Is this journey to colonize Mars the epitome of social inequality?
Citations: “Artist's impression of a city on Mars, which SpaceX wants to help establish with its Starship transportation system.” Space.com. www.space.com/mars-colony-human-genetic-engineering-tardigrades.html. Accessed 28 Apr 2021. Clifford, Catherine. “Elon Musk: Moving to Mars will cost less than $500,000, ‘maybe even below $100,000’.” CNBC, 11 Feb 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/elon-musk-how-much-it-will-cost-to-move-to-mars.html. Accessed 28 Apr 2021. Duffy, Kate. “Elon Musk says SpaceX will get humans to Mars in 2026.” Business Insider South Africa, 8 Feb. 2021, Business Insider, www.businessinsider.co.za/elon-musk-spacex-starship-humans-mars-mission-2026-experts-question-2021-2#:~:text=The%20billionaire%20said%20in%202017,later%20than%20he%20previously%20hoped. Accessed 28 Apr 2021. |
|
#risk #salience
|
|
#inequality #climate #salience #framing In Hannes Bergthaller’s article “Thoughts on Asia and the Anthropocene,” he describes the differences between Asian cultures and Western cultures and how these differences impact the regions’ response to climate change and the new epoch. He cites Yi-Fu Tuan’s comparison of Louis XIV’s gardens in France to the Chinese gardens during the Qing dynasty, highlighting the different views of nature. In a similar line of thinking, wishing to explore the centralization of the Anthropocene around Europe, Heather Davis and Zoe Todd wrote “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene.” Written in June 2016 when the Anthropocene was recommended as a new geological epoch, the authors propose to use the “golden spike” as the beginning of the epoch in 1610. This would highlight colonialism as the root cause of climate change and clarify that the Anthropocene is not a shift out of the blue but a consequence of colonialization and its intentions. Davis and Todd write, “Colonialism, especially settler colonialism was always about changing the land, transforming the earth itself, including the creatures, the plants, the soil composition and the atmosphere. It was about moving and unearthing rocks and minerals. All of these acts were intimately tied to the project of erasure that is the imperative of settler colonialism.” This echoes Tuan’s ideas about the French’s and the West’s manner of conquering and controlling nature. Bergthaller argues that Asian practices like rice farming are not as blameless as they may seem, but they also have their advantages. Bergthaller says, “If Chinese history does hold any lessons for humanity in the Anthropocene, they may have to do less with different ways of conceptualizing humanity’s position in relation to other beings, less with systems of religious belief such as those of Daoism or Buddhism, and rather more with forms of governance and administrative techniques for regulating a large human population straining against ecological limits,” echoing the sentiments of Davis and Todd, that the governing body or the body in power has control. The same conclusion about colonialism’s (or other forces forcing the hand of those under them) responsibility for climate change and the ensuing inequality can be made.
Davis and Todd Paper: https://www.acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/1539/1303 |
|
#origin #framing Bergthaller's article floored me. A few weeks ago I wrote about Aldo Leopold's proposal of a land ethic as a solution to Malthus's Tragedy of the Commons. Essentially, his book, A Sand County Almanac, was both a polemic of capitalism and its failure to incorporate the natural world into economic thought, as well as a philosophical mediation on the need for people to feel like "stewards" of the land. Granted, I don't think that's what Bergthaller is saying here–that the "East" (to contrast with his terminology of the "West") has already embraced this notion of stewardship–but I don't think it's far off either. I believe the crux of Bergthaller's point is that the East has already confronted the earthly limits of modernity defined by materialism, and that a combination of philosophical and biopolitcal precedence has therefore made the threat of climate change and the effects of the Anthropocene less shocking and worrisome relative to the West. Regardless, talk about inequity–particularly in the more abstract notion of inequity of opinion in environmental discourse. Here I am, an environmental and urban studies major, and a 10 page article has upended so much of my education on the subject. Even though Bergthaller is clearly not Asian, he has exposed me to a wholly different perspective on climate change and the Anthropocene than the Western outlook I've become so familiar with. The first is encapsulated by this quote from Indian novelist Amitav Gosh: “the patterns of life that modernity engenders can only be practiced by a small minority of the world’s population”(Ghosh 2016, 92). Even though it's slightly redundant to include Ghandi's quote on the matter here, his name carries enough moral cache to bear repeating of the sentiment: "God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the West. If an entire nation of 300 millions [sic] took to similar economic exploitation,it would strip the world bare like locusts”(qtd. in Ghosh 2016, 111). As an American, these quotes initially feel like an affront on basic human liberties, but Bergthaller's discussion of religion and history have convinced me this impulse, the American notion of unbridled liberalism and consumption, is born out of ignorance and the luxury of the Americas. In this article, Bergthaller highlights two critical differences between the East and the West. First, Christianity is an utterly anthropocentric religion that systemically attacked pagan animism and in doing so framed nature as subordinate and other to man (I really appreciated Bergthaller's connection to landscaping trends in the East vs West). Second, this period of the Anthropocene may have started far earlier than the Industrial Revolution and in fact, the intense agricultural practices of China may have significantly altered the planetary conditions centuries before. Consequently, China has already had to experience severe starvation and ecological devastation without the "ecological windfall" as Bergthaller puts it of discovering the Americas. Thus, this makes me think that perhaps the West is this bumbling idiot that's only recently accidentally stumbled upon the true plot as Ghosh puts it. However, this nonetheless raises the question, once introduced to the idea of material modernity, can one ever go back? On a side note, I did want to make one comment regarding the Agarwal & Narain reading. Although I fully understand the argument made about developed countries writing off centuries of GHG contributions and in doing so unfairly distributing the blame amongst developing countries, but I believe this notion of refining emission calculations only serves to delay action and factionalize countries. For example, these corrected calculations are likely a gross mischaracterization of emissions responsibility if one considers which countries export and which import, therefore distributing emissions from a certain sector across all countries that import from the high-emitter country. Yes, developing countries are getting the short stick by not being able to enjoy a century of coal-fueled modernization, but that does not mean they can't modernize at all. Look at the cellphone in much of Africa for example. Instead of following int he footsteps of Western nations and installing telephone alines across the continent, many countries simply took advantage of the way technology advanced in the interim and embraced cheaper cell phones. Similarly, many developing countries should regard renewables as allowing them to bypass the rather inefficient and detrimental stage of fossil fuels. (An image demonstrating the pre-Industrial revolution agricultural practices that could've significantly altered planetary conditions long before our current demarcation of the Anthropocene's start) |
|
#risk #framing #inequality This week's readings mirrors and reaffirms many of the points made in our second week discussion on the connection between global inequality and climate change. Chakrabarty and Agarwal give a clear outline of the many ways in which the west has driven the worst aspects of climate change for their own benefit while other disenfranchised regions often bear the brunt of the consequences. They both make solid points explaining how it is unfair to compare the emissions of underdeveloped countries that are primarily producing necessities for large populations to the emissions of countries producing luxury goods for relatively small populations. They furthermore tie the dark and exploitative colonial histories of western nations to these global inequities in development and climate change. However, while the two issues certainly are connected and exacerbate each other, I think that it would be a mistake to simply lump them into one broader issue that requires one massive solution. In the zero-sum, might makes right situation that is international politics attempting to enact a solution that both solves climate change and upends the entire international status quo at the same time borders on impossible. Many of the states that are in a position to combat climate change are already incredibly hesitant to enact any solutions for the specific reason that it might upset the international status quo. To therefore only propose solutions that will directly bring to fruition these states' worst fears about acting on climate change will only ensure that neither of these issues will be solved. The international status quo was only firmly established after two world wars and a nuclear cold war, throughout which an equitable distribution of resources was never taken into account. There is little to no historical evidence of ideas of equity playing any major role in the dynamics of international politics, so to expect a fear of climate change to all of the sudden fundamentally change these dynamics to be driven by equitable distribution of resources seems naive. While obviously not ideal, inequitable solutions to climate change are possible and far more likely to be enacted in the current political climate. For an equitable solution to climate change to be politically feasible, the international status quo would have to be fundamentally reordered into. States inherently seek to maximize their own resources and political influence, which means that an inequitable political situation is likely to only produce inequitable solutions. To actually be able to enact an equitable solution to climate change, the international political situation would have to be fundamentally changed to reflect an equitable distribution of political influence. However, historically, international political influence has almost solely been redistributed through military action or economic competition, neither of which tend to take equity into account. While an equitable solution to climate change would obviously be ideal, i don’t see a realistic way it could be reached without fundamentally reordering the international status quo, which itself is unlikely to be changed by any forces that seriously take equitable distributions into account.
|
|
#movie |
|
#framing The author focuses on the infrastructural construction of the bio-political control – by “infrastructural construction”, I not only mean the material facilities such as dams, canals and power plants, but also the formal administrative programs (such as the social credit system or the party manifestos) and organisational institutions (thinking about the increasing authority of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment in the last twenty years) – which is tangible. I would like to argue that probing into the infrastructural construction is not adequate enough for us to understand the bio-political history in China, or to distinguish its path of ecological governance from the West. It is better to discuss the trajectory and practice via informal bio-political rules, practice, networks and mobilisation. Formal regulations/laws and infrastructures don’t necessarily have significant meaning or impact in China – what makes a difference is how to enforce and wield those infrastructures. I want to illustrate the argument with one example. In the winter of 2017, the authority of Hebei province radically facilitated the pre-planned “coal-to-gas” conversion project in order to further improve the air quality of the capital and the northern China. It proved to be a political campaign with a complete ban on heating with coal in the rural and immediately induced an energy crisis in northern China. The Ministry of Environmental Protection had to send out a ministerial extra-urgent document to halt the project. The failure of the coal-to-gas project did not lie in its road map, but in the radical campaign-like mobilisation and implementation by the grass-root governments, which has been a curse to the top-to-bottom bio-political governance in China (I can raise more examples in history). Despite the chaotic policy implementation, a study shows that although there was air quality improvement in the coal-to-gas cities, the air quality deteriorated in the gas-shortage regions – in other words, there is a large trans-regional redistribution of air pollution in that winter (Wang et al. 2020). “Authoritarian environmentalism” doesn’t always prevail.
A disastrous example of authoritarian environmentalism: |
|
#origin #framing This Christian view therefore had a significant impact on the rapid development of industrialization, and how fossil fuels have contributed to humanity becoming a “geological force” (Bergthaller, 5). I think we can also compare this idea to the rise of Romanticism, and how people began to see nature as a beautiful thing, and something we must protect, which is in line with what Bergthaller was saying about how the Western world has become so obsessed with the idea of the Anthropocene, and how human impact must be reduced to save the planet (2). While proponents of fossil fuel use saw nature as a resource, and proponents of Romanticism saw nature as a thing of beauty, both cases show a distance between nature and humanity that has influenced the way people across the globe view the climate crisis, and the action they take in response to it. This is reflected in how Prime Minister Nehru saw the Himalayas “as a ‘source of power’, the mountains seemed most ‘amazing’” but also as “probably ‘the biggest source ... in the world,” (Chakrabarty, 18). Is there a perception of nature that is causing climate change, and is there one that will help us join together to combat it? These are questions that arose as I was reflecting on these texts.
Sources |
|
#salience #socialinequality This is where Charkarbarty lost me. I cannot, or at least currently find myself unable to “think of the role of the tuna!” as he puts it. I am confused by his interpretation of a post-human world, although I do think that we need to think of the progress of humanity as a whole not only of particular nations or peoples. I cannot conceive of an ideological process that could convince me that there is “agency of the non-human and the non-living.” I feel like I could understand this perspective in the abstract, but from the gearing of politics to serve those who cannot even perceive its existence seems to be going overboard. I would love to hear the Doctors oral presentation on this topic in class, because I do admit I could be convinced in this way, but it is my own inability to not get lost in the writing that might be preventing me from capturing the full breadth of the argument. I currently would have trouble justifying making a living person less well off than they could have been because we need to think about the rights of the tuna, unless in the long run the tuna helped more people. This spurs utilitarian thought, but I am curious how the moral justification for this ideology plays out. Of course, this could be a complete misinterpretation, which is why I am excited to hear Dr. Chakrabarty speak.
|
|
#risk #framing |
|
#origin #framing #solutions The readings this week take a close look at the social inequalities and conflicts surrounding existential threats. Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain's essay, "global warming in an unequal world," I found to be particularly affecting. Beyond challenging many of my preconceived notions about climate change and the western world, it also provided solutions and dismantled biases about this threat. The impact of climate change and the possible realizations that were posed quite eloquently by Agarwal and Narain: "The entire debate on the prospects of impending doom is in many ways an excellent opportunity for the world to truly realise the concept of one world. A world which is interdependent and which cannot withstand the current levels of consumption and exploitation, especially the levels now prevalent in the West." This is the heart of the problem. Western countries in particular have been over consuming and the wold cannot withstand the current levels of emissions being produced as a result. However, this global issue presents an opportunity for the world to come together as one and confront this issue together. Certain group of countries are producing far more per capita than others, particularly wealthy developed countries. We are lucky that this is not the case because for a population of 10 billion to be emitting carbon at the same rate as Western Europe, "this would imply carbon emissions of four times the current level, or as high as 23 billion tonnes per year." On a practical note, it is necessary for industrial countries to take initial and strong actions on global warming in order for the developing nations to see the seriousness of the threat. Not only are these industrial nations largely responsible for the problem, but they also have the most resources to do take action. The current debate on global warming, which has the potential to bring together the entire world, is only further dividing northern industrial nations and southern developing ones. Great emphasis in this essay is put on the WRI report that made developing nations largely responsible for climate change and took blame away from industrial countries. As the authors note, "estimates used by WRI to calculate carbon dioxide level are very shaky," particularly as they relate to things like deforestation. Ultimately, the fault lies with countries that are consuming far more than they need: "it is the production of carbon dioxide and methane by countries like USA and Japan — totally out of proportion to their populations and that of the world’s absorptive capacity — which is entirely responsible for the accumulation of unabsorbed carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. This statement, while partially true, seems like a drastic overstatement. The essay carries an angry tone in many places and this is one of them. The essay preaches global unity but tries to make the case that certain countries are in no way responsible for climate change. However, it is true that the majority of emissions do come from around 15 countries that are emitting beyond permissible limits. The problem of climate change has been framed from a western perspective. In there words, it has largely been framed by the countries that are primarily responsible and want to relieve themselves fo guilt and blame. However, it is these countries where it is most necessary to take action. The essay end by providing a number of solutions and different means of framing climate change. First and foremost, "in all market economies of the world, pollution control economists are now talking about the concept of tradeable emission quotas, which allow low-level polluters to trade their unused permissible emissions with high-level polluters." This is a practical and economically oriented solution to some of the problems that come with climate change. If it is no longer economically feasible to produce at current rates, then countries will either produce less or find more efficient means of production. The entire episode with the WRI report that this essay was written in response to has shown that "Third World nations must undertake their own research in this crucial area. They cannot depend on Western institutions to present a true picture of the global situation and safeguard their interests." This will further change the framing of this issue and could help create a sense of unity. The origins presented and the solutions posed in this essay end it on a surprisingly optimistic note with the possibility of unity and collective action on climate change.
|
|
#movie This week I watched Bong Joon-ho’s film Snowpiercer which portrays a post-apocalyptic world where the last survivors of humanity have been on board a train for seventeen years. The members of the train are separated by class with the poorest passengers crammed in the back in squalid, dehumanizing conditions and the wealthy passengers at the front with access to luxurious dining rooms, salons, sushi bars, and clubs. This film directly critiques the ways that class structures have become deeply imbedded in our society. It calls into question how sustainable it is to live in a world that is becoming increasingly globalized, while at the same time, its resources are becoming more and more unequally distributed. The movie is most successful at highlighting our lack of acknowledgement of the harm that the system we ascribe to and operate within inflicts upon the people at the very bottom of it. One line that is repeated throughout the film is, “the engine is eternal.” Bong Joon-ho uses this idea to reveal the ignorance of the passengers––specifically the first-class members—who blindly believe that the eco-system they have built will never die. In fact, this system operates through the oppression of the tail-end members who ultimately decide to fight back, subvert, and destroy it. While I’m not sure how realistic this risk of an immediate manmade apocalypse is, I think that Bong Joon-ho does a phenomenal job of revealing the unsettling durability of class structures in our society. There are oversights in the film that lead to minor gaps in the plot––like where are the crickets coming from for protein blocks, or how are there chickens being farmed––but overall, I think there is very little the film ignores in confronting the broad issue of social inequality. I find the most salient aspect of Snowpiercer to be at the ending, with the last two surviving passengers, Yona and Timmy. There is a glimmer of hope in the last moments, for perhaps with a complete destruction of the social structures, they can now start anew and create a civilization of equality and openness as an Asian girl and a black boy. However, the conclusion is ambiguous in itself as the two could also die in the extreme conditions as the camera closes on a white polar bear looming in the distance. Bong Joon-ho provides no answers for his audience––yet he leaves us with endless questions that have made me reflect on the hidden violence of industrialization, capitalism, and globalization. |
|
#movie In looking at social inequality, one can examine Elysium to further delve into the issues covered in class. In this response, I will first summarize the movie. Next, I will examine to see if this is truly a civilization ending event. Third, I will analyze the likelihood of this event happening. Finally, I will look into the ethics of such a scenario. For context on the movie, Elysium is a 2013 film that describes the real 2154 in which humanity is divided between the regular people versus the rich and powerful. While the regular citizens of the world live in a wreckage with the remnants of civilization, the rich and powerful live in a space habitat in earth’s orbit. Elysium is technologically advanced with green spaces and an amazing life for the people who live there. However, the residents of Elysium do not share these precious resources with the citizens of Earth. The movie then follows the struggle between Earth and Elysium in regards to resources. In examining the matter surrounding “Are We Doomed,” the first question to ask is if this dystopian future qualifies as a civilization ending future; the answer to which I believe is yes. While Elysium maintains the niceties of civilization as we know it today, the vast majority of people are struggling to survive. I believe that this is akin to our discussion of nuclear war fallout, where the rich are able to thrive in luxury bunkers while the common person either dies or must live in a world sent back centuries. Next, I would like to examine the likelihood of such a scenario; the answer to which I believe is that this is not very likely. The synthetic division between the rich and powerful versus the commoner does not have such a clear cut line. Additionally, it would be impossible for a group of people to construct such a satellite without having anyone or any government on earth capable of doing the same. Finally, there is a level of human compassion that I believe would stop such a situation. As we see today between more developed and less developed countries, there is a lending of aid and support. Lastly, I would like to investigate the ethics of such an installation; the answer to which centers around whether self-preservation supersedes human decency. I believe that such a situation as described in Elysium would be an affront to an ethical conscious. The sheer abundance of resources as depicted in the movie show that Elysium could survive and share resources at the same time. This, however, leads to the question of whether Elysium purposely keeps Earth weak in order to avoid the possibility of an opposing force. Regardless of the motivation, the ethical concerns lead to the fact that self-preservation alone does not justify the actions taken by the residents of Elysium. |
|
#movie For my movie memo I decided to rewatch one of my favorite movies of all time, Snowpiercer (2013), while this time honing in on all of the social inequality that is prevalent throughout. The Snowpiercer itself is a train that rides all around the world in a post-apocalyptic society, traversing the entire world in a span of a year. Most importantly, the train is separated by class status with the poorest people being in the back of the train and the elite being towards front, starting with Wilford who is the train's conductor and god in a sense. The people towards the back of the train live in non-humane conditions that resemble slums and only survive off of protein blocks. Meanwhile, those at the front are able to live without worries as they have access to endless food reserves, education, and even entertainment. To add on, the poor are consistently being policed and suffer extreme consequences if they try to revolt or move their way up the social ranks and live in better conditions. That is something that struck me watching it the second time around because I see how prevalent that is in today's society. Those growing up in tougher conditions (i.e. the favelas in Brazil or in underfunded neighborhoods in the U.S.) often find it impossible to make it out because of the hand they were dealt in life and large amount of obstacles they face, one of those being unfair policing. Another aspect of the film I found to be appalling in regard to social inequality was that even in a post-apocalyptic society, there managed to be a large gap between classes where the elite once again felt the need for an "order" to be restored. Given that the film is set 17 years following the disaster the struck the world, it is clear that the elite have been living comfortably for that long while the poor have been subjected to extreme living conditions. All the while, they are on the same train and in such close proximity to each other. There was a large amount of necessities that could have been given to the lower classes to ease and encourage their survival however this did not happen. It seemed to show me that class structures and classism will never go away no matter how hard people try, as unfortunate as that sounds. One of the beautiful scenes in the movie was the ending, where the entire system is broken and everybody on the train does not survive except for two people. The reason I think this is beautiful because it goes to show that a class system based on the aggressive policing of the underpriviliged was a failed one and everyone had to face the consequences of that. The only two survivors end up leaving the abandoned train hopes in restoring life amidst all of the impossible conditions that they will face (rejoining the post-apocalyptic conditions created 17 years ago.) The director does not make it clear whether they will survive (a classic Bong-Joon-Ho maneuver as he also does it in Parasite) but the motive that I got from the ending was that no matter how drastic conditions will be for the two survivors, it seemed like they were at peace and better off from escaping the horrifying conditions that they faced under the large amount of social inequality they faced while on the train.
|
and others
Leave below as comments your memos that grapple with the topic of Inequality and Conflict (and their interaction with other existential questions) inspired by the readings, movies & novels (at least one per quarter), your research, experiences, and imagination! Also add a thumbs up to the 5 memos you find most awesome, challenging, and discussion-worthy!
Recall the following instructions:
Memos: Every week students will post one memo in response to the readings and associated topic. The memo should be 300–500 words + 1 visual element (e.g., figure, image, hand-drawn picture, art, etc. that complements or is suggestive of your argument). The memo should be tagged with one or more of the following:
#origin: How did we get here? Reflection on the historical, technological, political and other origins of this existential crisis that help us better understand and place it in context.
#risk: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the risk associated with this challenge. This risk analysis could be locally in a particular place and time, or globally over a much longer period, in isolation or in relation to other existential challenges (e.g., the environmental devastation that follows nuclear fallout).
#policy: What individual and collective actions or policies could be (or have been) undertaken to avert the existential risk associated with this challenge? These could include a brief examination and evaluation of a historical context and policy (e.g., quarantining and plague), a comparison of existing policy options (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, ethical contrast), or design of a novel policy solution.
#solutions: Suggestions of what (else) might be done. These could be personal, technical, social, artistic, or anything that might reduce existential risk.
#framing: What are competing framings of this existential challenge? Are there any novel framings that could allow us to think about the challenge differently; that would make it more salient? How do different ethical, religious, political and other positions frame this challenge and its consequences (e.g., “End of the Times”).
#salience: Why is it hard to think and talk about or ultimately mobilize around this existential challenge? Are there agencies in society with an interest in downplaying the risks associated with this challenge? Are there ideologies that are inconsistent with this risk that make it hard to recognize or feel responsible for?
#nuclear/#climate/#bio/#cyber/#emerging: Partial list of topics of focus.
Movie/novel memo: Each week there will be a selection of films and novels. For one session over the course of the quarter, at their discretion, students will post a memo that reflects on a film or fictional rendering of an existential challenge. This should be tagged with:
#movie / #novel: How did the film/novel represent the existential challenge? What did this highlight; what did it ignore? How realistic was the risk? How salient (or insignificant) did it make the challenge for you? For others (e.g., from reviews, box office/retail receipts, or contemporary commentary)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: