Critical Analysis Of The Notion Of Environmentalism Of The Rich
Change is one of the most adverse problems faced in the current world, with most people and scholars tracing it to the increased industrialization and globalization that society is currently witnessing. Most of the primary factors causing climate change are directly associated with human activities. Recent studies showed that the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the resultant associated dire effects have reached an alarming rate, thereby demanding immediate intervention if only to save the world. As a result, many people have emerged with different strategies for mitigating the adverse effects that come with climate change. One such intervention is the “environmentalism of the rich” concept of handling global warming. However, this notion has not had any significant impacts on dealing with the issues of climate change. Instead, the idea of “environmentalism of the rich” seems to have worsened the cases of environmental pollution. This paper, therefore, critically analyzes the notion of “environmentalism of the rich,” how it has not helped in solving environmental issues, and how it has, instead, worsened pollution.
The notion arises from the collective decisions that the wealthy companies and corporations from the West adopted to help reverse the dire pollution cases that threaten havoc on the world. These companies and organizations include the multinational firms that are self-sustainable, most mainstream environmental non-profits, and the many ecological regulators around the world. These companies claim to be solving the environmental issues by swapping the old conventional products with new ones that they purport to be eco-friendly and less contaminative. Specifically, the companies indicate that their replacement of old with new is aimed at reducing the consumption of water and energy as well as lower the levels of carbon pollution in the world.
According to these non-profits and wealthy companies, the continuous trade in “green” products will make the consumers direct participants in the environmental conservation efforts. As a result, they hope that the efforts that they are making to promote reduced consumption of products likely to contaminate the environment will eventually help tp eradicate significant amounts of pollutants, thus creating a major global impact. These reasons sound very appealing and actionable. However, they have failed terribly in addressing environmental implications because they are easier said than done.
The first reason that proves how the notion of environmentalism of the rich has more adverse effects on the environment is the perception that the companies and non-profits can reduce contamination through fair trade. This situation takes us back to what caused the alarming state that the world is currently witnessing. Before globalization and industrialization took their toll in society, Agriculture was the most dominant economic activity. People tilled the land for both domestic use and business purposes, and life was relatively enjoyable, considering how easy getting those commodities was. Those who had animal products and needed cereals traded with others who had excess cereals and fewer animal products. This was the type of trade common during those days.
Little by little, the definition of trade started to expand as people realized that they could trade even more staff. People gradually began exchanging goods with services then with coins, eventually marking the different definitions of the new form of trade from the previously used barter trade. During this time, the world was still green, with a lot of vegetation and forest cover. The air was fresh because many trees were purifying the air and maintain the average carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, these benefits did not last long as the shift to industrialization marked the beginning of the end of the fresh air that individuals had been enjoying. What resulted was increased pollution, which started to manifest immediately.
At this time, when industrialization started, the industries were limited to the nations in which they were established. Only goods and workforce were transferred from one government to another. Although this may seem as though some countries were disadvantaged, more so those which did not have any established industries, they were the most advantaged one in terms of environmental safety because they did not suffer from the significant emissions and contaminations that the industrialized countries were suffering. Even in the wake of globalization, most nations still restricted investments through industries, especially those from foreign governments, which they believed would not adhere to their stringent environmental conservation rules.
Right now, the “environmentalism of the rich” is claiming that it wants to minimize environmental pollution by promoting free trade among international regions. This claim is both ironical and illogical in all terms. Free trade means that the wealthy companies and entities, both governmental and non-governmental, profit and non-profits, want to coerce nations into breaking their trade barriers to allow trade from any countries around the globe. This suggestion is not only a bad idea but also one that should be condemned with all forces possible. One of the most common trade barriers that nations have enacted to safeguard their countries from various forms of pollution is legal requirements regarding the environmental standards that companies must meet before gaining access to their territories. However, free trade that the notion of “environmentalism of the rich” suggests will dilute such legislations and coerce nations into accepting raw deals regarding companies not meeting the environmental threshold.
Another reason for implanting trade barriers is to protect local industries from the threats of foreign ones, which usually exploit labor and raw materials to create relatively cheaper goods and products. With the barriers, the local industries are enjoying huge markets, thereby managing to engage in significant environmental conservation measures because their costs of production are also relatively low. These are benefits that the local firms will immediately seize to enjoy the free trade policies that will be adopted. The increased competition from the foreign industries will make them reconsider their prices downwards to meet the new market prices for a competitive advantage. These situations will, in turn, affect their profitability, thus forcing them to seek ways by which they can cut their production costs. In such instances, the companies will cut out the resource-consuming environmental conservation measures, thereby subjecting their nations to higher environmental pollution risks. One example of actions that the companies can discard is the treatment of wastes before disposing of them. The firms will dispose of untreated toxic elements, while others surpass the acceptable emission into the atmosphere to survive the harsh operation fields.
Another misleading idea of the “environmentalism of the rich” notion is the claim of reducing pollution through corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility refers to the activities that companies conduct to give back to the community. While some companies always participate directly through initiatives focused on conserving the environment, others do so by employing the community members in their companies and also boosting the infrastructure in their host nations. Participating in such activities is not a bad idea. It can help in elevating the locals’ standards of living, thus raising them from poverty levels. However, these would only be possible if the companies were sincere and faithful to their words. Unfortunately, they are not.
Well established companies have always embraced the concept of globalization and mastered the art of taking advantage of every opportunity that comes their way. Initially, people were open to the idea of enhancing the living standards of the community members until it occurred that those were just but another bunch of empty promises. Ever since the concept of corporate social responsibility was adopted, the world has witnessed worse pollution cases than was previously the case. What now occurs is that corporate social responsibility is just but a strategy that the companies use to access markets that they would have otherwise not been readily accepted in. It also now seems like a tool that these companies use to blindfold regular citizens as they expand their businesses within those territories.
The Underlying factor about environmental conservation is that it cannot be achieved by doing the same things that cost it. Industrialization and increased human activity are the primary factors that contributed and are still contributing to global warming and its associated effects. As at now, the same companies purporting to be committed to reverse the situation through the “environmentalism of the rich” notion are the same ones destroying the Amazon Forest for raw materials. None of the nations, including the United States through President Barrack Obama, has fulfilled the levels that they set as targets regarding emissions into the atmosphere. Instead, more and more factories and industries are establishing, thus worsening the situations of global warming. The companies that should be at the forefront fighting for and implementing conservation measures are the same one showing greed for higher financial success, thus venturing into any possible market that they can access.
The notion of “environmentalism of the rich” will remain a blatant lie as long as the companies do not walk their talk. A world that is struggling to solve environmental pollution concerns cannot be the same one propagating environmental hazards. When the “environmentalism of the rich” purports to reduce energy consumption, what is expected to dominate the society are various forms of eco-friendly and renewable energy. Companies would be venturing into solar and hydropower and researching other ways of getting and exploiting the renewable sources of energy. On the contrary, companies are still using fuels that emit considerable volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Motor vehicle industries that have taken ages researching the viability and convenience of electric vehicles still launch millions of cars into the market per day, yet it is still expected that nations will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that they emit into the atmosphere.
Conserving the environment requires serious measures that the “environmentalism of the rich” notion cannot provide. First, people need to think about reforestation before anything else. Currently, everyone seems concerned with environmental conservation, yet at their backyards, they are still bringing down trees. The most common concern that usually arises when talking about reforestation is where the ever-increasing population will live if nobody is to cut down trees anymore, but instead plant. The equally important question that people often choose to ignore is where and how they will live once they have downed all the trees. Nobody in his/her right senses can claim to have felt the effect of global warming so far. The weather patterns have changed and become unpredictable; water levels have reduced in the seas and oceans. Snows have also melted from the peak of huge mountains sending signals to a population where the able care less while the unable care more, yet they cannot do anything of significant help.
Secondly, the bitter truth is that globalization and industrialization are equally significant contributors to the contamination levels registered across the globe. Every development trend that is launched tends to be shifting from the safe to unsafe products. For instance, “environmentalism of the rich” has fulfilled its ambitions of increasing production by changing from the more expensive and unproductive contemporary methods of farming to modern ways. However, these highly-rated modern ways have proven to be significant threats to society. The chemicals used as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides end up in the atmosphere and water bodies, thereby making humans to be surrounded by everything that is polluted.
It is evident from the discussion above that climate change still ranks as the most significant challenge experienced in the contemporary world. Increased efforts are being noticed from every nation in the region, yet the situation seems to be worsening by the day. Part of the reasons for such scenarios is the notion of “environmentalism of the rich. ” This discussion has shown how wealthy companies hide in the factors they consider as a measure of environmental conservation to push their hidden agendas of capturing the global market. As already mentioned in this discussion, only sincere and logical efforts can help eradicate the menace wreaking havoc in society. These ambitions must then be accompanied by actions reversing the situations that led to rapid climate change. Otherwise, the entire population in the world will have to number their days as everyone waits for the ultimate repercussions.
