Public Policy 10
The environmental movement is relatively recent. Knowledge of climate change, or recognizing the existence of climate change, is as much a political choice as it is about "knowing the facts," which of course 99 per cent of scientists regard climate change as a man-made phenomenon.
Globalization definitely has a big impact on climate change and global warming. Since economic growth has always been a cause of urbanization, as people leave the rural country and migrate to cities looking for work, globalization has brought with it a tremendous growth of urbanization worldwide, especially in countries like China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Russia, and many other cities worldwide. If you look at a list of cities by population, NYC does not even make the top 25. At least, according to the limits of the city proper, the "metropolitan area" is much larger, the metro area being defined by both the city area and surrounding areas linked to the urban core by industry, infrastructure, and housing. In many regards, the metro area is a more realistic, or even organic, measurement, as it accounts for the interdependence that exists on a smaller-scale, not between nations, but between cities and their surrounding areas (core and periphery). The massive growth of these cities is clearly evidence of the impact of globalization, but this brings enormous challenge as well, in terms of creating housing and infrastructure for this influx of population into cities.
This growth has a tremendous impact on the environment as well. Consider just the level at which Americans consume. It is often reported that while the US only makes up 5 per cent of the world's population, we consume 25 per cent of the world's resources. Now, imagine people in China and India having the same habits Americans do, but with populations far larger. This is known as the "ecological footprint" of humanity, literally, our impact on the environment. Can the planet sustain this strain on its resources? For example, one thing impacting the earth's oceans are overfishing which has resulted in the extinction of numerous aquatic species and significant depletion of the earth's stock of tuna, salmon, swordfish, etc. Thomas Malthus, another classical liberal economist, predicted that population growth would outpace our ability to produce food, leading to mass starvation. This idea still works its way into current discussions, for example Peter Dauvergne, argues that Malthus' predictions appear to be incorrect, as improvements in technology have greatly increased food production. Still, in modern times mass starvation has happened, most notoriously, during China's "Great Leap Forward" begun under Mao Zedong in the late 1950s, leading to the deaths of 40 million people between 1958-61. Lack of access to food is a reality for close to a billion people in the world, almost all in developing countries, although as Marxists point out, this is not due to lack of food, but lack of money for food.
Furthermore, another important issue concerns the regulation of food. The U.S. is a wealthy country (with many homeless people and people without access to food), but the regulations over the production of food are notoriously loose compared to other countries. Simply put, many questionable food production methods that are banned in other countries for their health implications, are permissible in the U.S.
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/10-american-foods-are-banned-other-countries
Dauvergne frames the globalization debate on the environment between optimists and pessimists. The optimists believe that globalization has a positive impact on the environment, as economies develop they become "cleaner and greener," and as global trade becomes more liberal, developing countries will advance faster and become cleaner as well, even if pollution levels increase in the short-term. There is no way to deny that the early stages of industrialization increase pollution tremendously, but the optimists believe that over time, again, as they become more developed they produce less pollution. This is expressed in the "Environmental Kuznets Curve" which illustrates this relationship, as per cap it income increases, the degradation of the environment at first increases, then decreases:
However, the pessimists believe that globalization has a significant negative impact on the environment. The Kuznets Curve provides a falsely optimistic view of reality, as it does not take into account carbon emissions and climate change. Often when discussing the environment, there is a tendency to treat it as a single issue, in reality there are many. Pollution in an urban area is one issue, but global climate change is another issue, the Kuznets Curve may address the one, but not the other. Plus, even if urban areas like London and New York are cleaner than they were in the 19th century, that does not mean they do not have an "ecological shadow" or past traces of the pollution they created that contributes to the over all increase in carbon emissions. This is a very sensitive topic for developing countries too, who feel that developed countries have an advantage in that they were allowed to industrialize without regard for the environment, but now insist developing countries impose limits on their advancement in the name of environmental safety. Many in the US argue that developing countries like China are now the largest polluters in the world, while they counter that the overall pollution developed countries have caused is still greater. Just like issues over global trade this seems to present an obstacle for progress on this issue that sees no easy solution. Despite environmental issues becoming high profile in the 1970s, and despite several highly publicized climate talks, summits, conferences, etc. very little concrete progress has been made. Agreements have been signed but not followed up on, or signatories like the US have renounced earlier agreements like the Paris Agreement.
The history of the environmental movement is recent, and the attention given to the environment by world leaders is even more recent. The earliest significant conference called by the United Nations on environmental issues was the Stockholm Conference in 1972, leading to the creation of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
Through the rest of the 70s and early 80s, environmental issues slid more into the background, as conservative governments took control, symbolized by President Reagan removing the solar panels put on the White House by the previous Carter administration. However, by the end of the decade, the environment proved to be something politicians could not prevent people taking notice of, as Dauvergne says, "Problems such as the depletion of the ozone layer, and disasters such as the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, the Union Carbide chemical leak in Bhopal in 1984, and the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in 1986, added a sense of urgency" (p. 379). This helped spur on the development of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
This, in turn, led to environmental issues becoming even more prominent by the 90s, leading to the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. This conference, also known as the Earth Summit, was the first significant attempt by all nations to commit to reduce carbon emissions, leading to the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the basis of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and Paris Agreement of 2016, as well as other "Earth Summits" like 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa, or Rio again in 2012.
https://www.civilsdaily.com/primer-to-environmental-issues/
Still, as mentioned, the highly publicized nature of these events suggests a growing awareness of the problem, but very little has been done to reduce carbon emissions which continue to increase, leading to the further warming of the planet. Many believe, that much like the depletion of the ozone layer was a serious issue, but one that was affected by public policy, leading to efforts lowering production of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), in the Montreal Protocol (1987), climate change will eventually be solved the same way.
The obstacles to addressing carbon emissions is greater, as it plays a greater role in our economy. As is known now, the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause leading to higher carbon emissions, and in turn raising global temperatures.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/
The effects of which impact the global environment in too many ways to list here. One of the many impacts are rising sea levels due to the melting of glaciers, but even more alarming the acidification of the oceans due to rising levels.
One of the major problems for dealing with the environment, specifically, carbon emissions is the tendency for countries to free ride. If we can assume the environment is a "public good" that we all enjoy, then most states will work to preserve that public good. That, however, also creates a tendency to free-ride as it is now in my interest to let other countries take on the costs of cleaning up the environment while I continue to exploit the environment. In short, no country wants to take on the costs of creating a cleaner economy (less dependent on fossil fuels) if it can avoid it, and let other countries take on these costs. But, again, as these problems bring to light, if everyone acts on that assumption then nothing will be done and the public good will be ruined, this is also known as the "tragedy of the commons."
Another issues is to what extent the profit driven dynamics of the capitalist system prevent any efforts to address climate change. After all, given all the negative side effects and consequences from burning fossil fuels, whether coal or oil, why have countries still not switched to an alternative after all this time? The answer, of course, is because fossil fuel industries are insanely profitable industries, and oil companies are basically the largest and most profitable companies in the world. Oil is a very valuable commodity in other words, but what is a commodity? As Marx would say, a commodity, or anything produced by human labor, has both a "use-value" and "exchange-value." The use value refers to what the thing actually does, or what use it has to a person, and represents the real qualities of an object, while its exchange value is basically its value on the market, or how much it can be exchanged for. This fundamental aspect of Marx's theory still seems relevant today on a variety of issues, including climate change. If we look at the use value of fossil fuels, it does not seem to be particularly useful. It can be used for fuel, but the negative side effects seem so great, that it cancels any benefit you get, however, because of its high exchange value on the market, it continues to be produced. In Marx's view, as a capitalist system develops, exchange value comes to replace or overshadow the use value of objects, more objects are produced for exchange than for use. It is an interesting way of looking at things that can be used to explain all sorts of things including: the drug trade, the housing crisis, and climate change, since they all feature the replacement of use value by exchange value.
Without addressing how the profit motive itself leads to situations that make destroying the environment profitable in some way, it does not seem likely world leaders will make any real progress in addressing these issues, no matter how many treaties are signed.
Next class, we will talk about foreign policy. For the assignments choose one of the readings listed on Blackboard.
Globalization definitely has a big impact on climate change and global warming. Since economic growth has always been a cause of urbanization, as people leave the rural country and migrate to cities looking for work, globalization has brought with it a tremendous growth of urbanization worldwide, especially in countries like China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Russia, and many other cities worldwide. If you look at a list of cities by population, NYC does not even make the top 25. At least, according to the limits of the city proper, the "metropolitan area" is much larger, the metro area being defined by both the city area and surrounding areas linked to the urban core by industry, infrastructure, and housing. In many regards, the metro area is a more realistic, or even organic, measurement, as it accounts for the interdependence that exists on a smaller-scale, not between nations, but between cities and their surrounding areas (core and periphery). The massive growth of these cities is clearly evidence of the impact of globalization, but this brings enormous challenge as well, in terms of creating housing and infrastructure for this influx of population into cities.
 |
| Smog in Shanghai, China |
This growth has a tremendous impact on the environment as well. Consider just the level at which Americans consume. It is often reported that while the US only makes up 5 per cent of the world's population, we consume 25 per cent of the world's resources. Now, imagine people in China and India having the same habits Americans do, but with populations far larger. This is known as the "ecological footprint" of humanity, literally, our impact on the environment. Can the planet sustain this strain on its resources? For example, one thing impacting the earth's oceans are overfishing which has resulted in the extinction of numerous aquatic species and significant depletion of the earth's stock of tuna, salmon, swordfish, etc. Thomas Malthus, another classical liberal economist, predicted that population growth would outpace our ability to produce food, leading to mass starvation. This idea still works its way into current discussions, for example Peter Dauvergne, argues that Malthus' predictions appear to be incorrect, as improvements in technology have greatly increased food production. Still, in modern times mass starvation has happened, most notoriously, during China's "Great Leap Forward" begun under Mao Zedong in the late 1950s, leading to the deaths of 40 million people between 1958-61. Lack of access to food is a reality for close to a billion people in the world, almost all in developing countries, although as Marxists point out, this is not due to lack of food, but lack of money for food.
Furthermore, another important issue concerns the regulation of food. The U.S. is a wealthy country (with many homeless people and people without access to food), but the regulations over the production of food are notoriously loose compared to other countries. Simply put, many questionable food production methods that are banned in other countries for their health implications, are permissible in the U.S.
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/10-american-foods-are-banned-other-countries
Dauvergne frames the globalization debate on the environment between optimists and pessimists. The optimists believe that globalization has a positive impact on the environment, as economies develop they become "cleaner and greener," and as global trade becomes more liberal, developing countries will advance faster and become cleaner as well, even if pollution levels increase in the short-term. There is no way to deny that the early stages of industrialization increase pollution tremendously, but the optimists believe that over time, again, as they become more developed they produce less pollution. This is expressed in the "Environmental Kuznets Curve" which illustrates this relationship, as per cap it income increases, the degradation of the environment at first increases, then decreases:
However, the pessimists believe that globalization has a significant negative impact on the environment. The Kuznets Curve provides a falsely optimistic view of reality, as it does not take into account carbon emissions and climate change. Often when discussing the environment, there is a tendency to treat it as a single issue, in reality there are many. Pollution in an urban area is one issue, but global climate change is another issue, the Kuznets Curve may address the one, but not the other. Plus, even if urban areas like London and New York are cleaner than they were in the 19th century, that does not mean they do not have an "ecological shadow" or past traces of the pollution they created that contributes to the over all increase in carbon emissions. This is a very sensitive topic for developing countries too, who feel that developed countries have an advantage in that they were allowed to industrialize without regard for the environment, but now insist developing countries impose limits on their advancement in the name of environmental safety. Many in the US argue that developing countries like China are now the largest polluters in the world, while they counter that the overall pollution developed countries have caused is still greater. Just like issues over global trade this seems to present an obstacle for progress on this issue that sees no easy solution. Despite environmental issues becoming high profile in the 1970s, and despite several highly publicized climate talks, summits, conferences, etc. very little concrete progress has been made. Agreements have been signed but not followed up on, or signatories like the US have renounced earlier agreements like the Paris Agreement.
The history of the environmental movement is recent, and the attention given to the environment by world leaders is even more recent. The earliest significant conference called by the United Nations on environmental issues was the Stockholm Conference in 1972, leading to the creation of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
Through the rest of the 70s and early 80s, environmental issues slid more into the background, as conservative governments took control, symbolized by President Reagan removing the solar panels put on the White House by the previous Carter administration. However, by the end of the decade, the environment proved to be something politicians could not prevent people taking notice of, as Dauvergne says, "Problems such as the depletion of the ozone layer, and disasters such as the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, the Union Carbide chemical leak in Bhopal in 1984, and the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in 1986, added a sense of urgency" (p. 379). This helped spur on the development of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
This, in turn, led to environmental issues becoming even more prominent by the 90s, leading to the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. This conference, also known as the Earth Summit, was the first significant attempt by all nations to commit to reduce carbon emissions, leading to the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the basis of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and Paris Agreement of 2016, as well as other "Earth Summits" like 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa, or Rio again in 2012.
https://www.civilsdaily.com/primer-to-environmental-issues/
Still, as mentioned, the highly publicized nature of these events suggests a growing awareness of the problem, but very little has been done to reduce carbon emissions which continue to increase, leading to the further warming of the planet. Many believe, that much like the depletion of the ozone layer was a serious issue, but one that was affected by public policy, leading to efforts lowering production of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), in the Montreal Protocol (1987), climate change will eventually be solved the same way.
The obstacles to addressing carbon emissions is greater, as it plays a greater role in our economy. As is known now, the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause leading to higher carbon emissions, and in turn raising global temperatures.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/
The effects of which impact the global environment in too many ways to list here. One of the many impacts are rising sea levels due to the melting of glaciers, but even more alarming the acidification of the oceans due to rising levels.
One of the major problems for dealing with the environment, specifically, carbon emissions is the tendency for countries to free ride. If we can assume the environment is a "public good" that we all enjoy, then most states will work to preserve that public good. That, however, also creates a tendency to free-ride as it is now in my interest to let other countries take on the costs of cleaning up the environment while I continue to exploit the environment. In short, no country wants to take on the costs of creating a cleaner economy (less dependent on fossil fuels) if it can avoid it, and let other countries take on these costs. But, again, as these problems bring to light, if everyone acts on that assumption then nothing will be done and the public good will be ruined, this is also known as the "tragedy of the commons."
Another issues is to what extent the profit driven dynamics of the capitalist system prevent any efforts to address climate change. After all, given all the negative side effects and consequences from burning fossil fuels, whether coal or oil, why have countries still not switched to an alternative after all this time? The answer, of course, is because fossil fuel industries are insanely profitable industries, and oil companies are basically the largest and most profitable companies in the world. Oil is a very valuable commodity in other words, but what is a commodity? As Marx would say, a commodity, or anything produced by human labor, has both a "use-value" and "exchange-value." The use value refers to what the thing actually does, or what use it has to a person, and represents the real qualities of an object, while its exchange value is basically its value on the market, or how much it can be exchanged for. This fundamental aspect of Marx's theory still seems relevant today on a variety of issues, including climate change. If we look at the use value of fossil fuels, it does not seem to be particularly useful. It can be used for fuel, but the negative side effects seem so great, that it cancels any benefit you get, however, because of its high exchange value on the market, it continues to be produced. In Marx's view, as a capitalist system develops, exchange value comes to replace or overshadow the use value of objects, more objects are produced for exchange than for use. It is an interesting way of looking at things that can be used to explain all sorts of things including: the drug trade, the housing crisis, and climate change, since they all feature the replacement of use value by exchange value.
Without addressing how the profit motive itself leads to situations that make destroying the environment profitable in some way, it does not seem likely world leaders will make any real progress in addressing these issues, no matter how many treaties are signed.
Next class, we will talk about foreign policy. For the assignments choose one of the readings listed on Blackboard.
Is there an assignment for this week?
ReplyDeleteHey professor, are supposed to blog about this? if so what links should we use?
ReplyDeleteHello professor! do we have to use a quote from your blog?
ReplyDelete