Environmental Crisis

Introduction

Issues surrounding the concept of capitalist globalization have resulted in the development of a new dominant role not only on the transnational capital working internationally across the economic, geographical, social, and political boundaries, but also influence the economic, social and political situations among the nation-states and their environment. Although some people hold that we dwell in a global disorder and a chaotic global system where even the most pessimistic issues are unpredictable despite the end of the Second World War (Temper et al., 2018). Today, there exists no single world government capable of identifying current power relations. Moreover, globalization is triggering the resurrection of nationalism partly since the new economic giants are looking forward to emerging as political giants through national reaffirmation. In contrast, the western powers are focused on fighting the rise of nationalists, xenophobic forces, and racialism after being unable to tackle issues related to financial challenges. Nonetheless, the global communities continue to face numerous global issues, particularly environmental crises, and unless the world collaborates in solving such issues, the dilemma will have more adverse impacts than the situation is currently (Harper & Snowden, 2017). This paper aims to evaluate the impact of the uneven distribution of power to the environmental crisis. Various tenets that directly or indirectly lead to an environmental crisis such as environmentalism of the poor, empire, and imperialism and environmental racism will be evaluated and discussed in detail.

Environmentalism of the Poor

Models of environmentalism of the poor and liberation ecology have close similarities with the Green movement field that evaluates the uneven distribution of environmental resources and the adverse impact of economic growth and development. These opinions differ significantly from the mainstream of today’s environmentalism in that they emphasize environmental modernization, eco-efficiency, and traditional environmentalism to preserve a pristine nature without human interruption (Temper et al., 2018). The poor’s concept of environmentalism portrays itself through dilemmas that have environmental elements such as social justice issues and including impoverished populations fighting against the public or private corporations that tend to threaten their culture, health, livelihood, and autonomy. The model is developed based on the resistance against the inappropriate use of ecological resources by the powerful and wealthy (Harper & Snowden, 2017). In most countries, poor communities are identified, striving to correct the evils perpetrated against the environment, including land, air, and water. In this perspective, the model contradicts various scholarly researches like the Brundtland report and their perspective that the environmental crisis is caused by poverty.

Globally, there exist numerous leading examples of this type of environmentalism including the Ogoni, the Ijaw among other protesting groups which are against the environmental damage caused by oil extraction by the Shell Company in the Niger delta; eucalyptus resistance in Thailand and other countries on facts that plantations are not forest and; the outees movements as a result of dam construction in Narmada river in India (Suša, 2019). Other historical incidences of what is termed as environmentalism of the poor also exist—for instance, Rio Tinto in the late 19th century against the release of sulphur dioxide from copper mines.

Therefore, unless issues surrounding the concept of uneven distribution of environmental costs and advantages remain unresolved, attempts to calm movement connected to the environmentalism of the poor are far from success. However, the popularity offered to these efforts through old channels of communication and the current network of communities is a significant motivation to those opposing efforts bent on degrading the local and global environment (Temper et al., 2018).

Empire and Imperialism

At the core of its foundation, the European conquest of distant nations entirely changed the world in environmental terms both through economic and infrastructural development. All that triggered the processing, exploitation, and transport of minerals and other resources, but also by introducing new species of fauna and flora. The impacts of these environmental transformations were wide-reaching and altering globally, not only in terms of their adverse effects on the indigenous cultural practices but also through the invasive aspect of most of these new species, which brought no natural prey in their ecology (Temper et al., 2018).  For instance, the smallpox virus was deemed responsible for the death of millions of local people.

The global environmental exchange, which was a by-product of European imperialism, completely changed the global environment and triggered the imperial expansion of Western kingdoms across the globe. The push to generate wealth – which is a prerequisite for capitalist economies – results in a spectrum of such environmental changes and disparities. For instance, throughout the Global South, multi-companies try profitable sites under weak environmental legislation to generate emissions across export processing regions (Harper & Snowden, 2017). The most abundant energy firms in the global economy (private and publicly owned) benefit from the documented tragedies arising from environmental change. The threat of plastic waste in the world oceans as discarded single-use plastics is a priority for costs from recycled or regenerating products or even concentration of environment-changing carbon emissions in the setting. These are some indicators of the worldwide (ecological) ecological power struggles triggered by imperialism general influence period (Suša, 2019).

Environmental Racism

Contaminated drinking water in Michigan, lower Rio Basin hazardous waste pits and a city in China that kills 80 percent of children through old machine pieces, all these are indicators of environmental-racism, a type of institutionalized racism where colored societies are overwhelmingly overloaded with health risks by policies and procedures which require them to live close to hazardous waste sites, such as wastewater, mines, site deposition, power plants and main highways, and airborne pollutants emissions (Suša, 2019). As a consequence, levels of health conditions induced by harmful contaminants are higher in these populations. Environmental racism could occur in several different directions, from occupations with unsafe policies to the position of coal-fired power plants in overwhelmingly not white neighborhoods (Temper et al., 2018).  This may indicate that people consume polluted air or are trained about asbestos issues in rotting houses. Some of these challenges affect low-income populations in general, but the color is also a more accurate indicator of emission proximity.

Indigenous cultures are also affected by environmental racism. The US tends to subject native tribes to vast quantities of radioactive and other toxic material as companies use more standard rules on the property. The federal government keeps resources under “trust” with the nations—the long-lasting issues created by decades of nuclear fuel-mining in the territory of Navajo in New Mexico. Globalization has enhanced the worldwide potential for environmental racism. This applies to the disposal in the developing world of chemicals such as e-waste, where protection regulations and sustainable policies are more stringent (Harper & Snowden, 2017). The environmental movement operates by informing researchers, political lobbying measures, and civic advocacy to raise understanding of the situation of underserved groups. Online networking, civil action, movements are being used by progressive groups to get their voices known. The European Union also sponsored campaigns, such as the sustainable protection, obligations, and trade ventures, which run from 2011-15 and bringing together scientists and government decision-makers from 20 countries around the globe to promote the cause of environmental equality, including the most recorded instances of environmental racism impacting Romania communities (Temper et al., 2018). Counteracting environmental racism increasingly threatens the strategy, especially at the current age of COVID-19; higher instances of various factors such as asthma and cardiac disease arising from exposures to pollutants are likely to play an essential role in racially diverse citizens more prone to suffer from the virus (Suša, 2019). The broader social picture of environmental racism that must be battled to introduce a fair and just society includes environmental racism.

Conclusion

Increased poverty in one population, as measured by people’s relative employment, wages, and income inequality, contributes to worse results for virtually all in that nation in terms of health, education, and welfare. The consequences of degradation to the ecosystem often overwhelmingly impact those that benefit directly from this consequence of inequalities in the United States. This is obvious as pollution levels in the poorest, 20% of US populations become considerably higher. The global communities continue to face numerous global issues, particularly the environmental crisis. Unless the world collaborates to solve such issues, the dilemma will have more adverse impacts than the current situation. This paper has evaluated the impact of the uneven distribution of power to the environmental crisis.
Proposal

A polluted environment compromises the safety, lifestyles, and resources of vulnerable communities, and that, in effect, impacts the imbalance in opportunity and the outcome-generating a loop, which is disastrous. Conflicts resulting from the usage and management of natural resources will contribute to this uncertainty, undermine human development progress, and impact the vulnerable. There seems to be no real problem with how higher income levels are related to environmental disruption. For more than two decades, scientists have tried to explain how and, if so, what triggers.

Several cross-national studies have shown that inequality is linked to environmental degradation and deforestation in which more prosperous countries continue to have higher deforestation levels and effects on ecosystems. Researchers have found that countries with more significant inequalities have comparatively high rates of oil use and carbon-consuming goods, including fuel, water consumption, and waste generation. Democratic accountability efficiency tends to play a crucial role in alleviating environmental burden and deterioration. There is also no clear consensus as to the most critical dimension of government – if a nation is a functional state, the presence of independent civil society groups, or the degree of inequality is critical.

Boyce, J. K., Zwickl, K., & Ash, M. (2016). Measuring environmental inequality. Ecological Economics, 124, 114-123. Retrieved from https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/05Chapter3.pdf

Given harsh environmental conditions in several small and mid-income nations, there are few longitudinal analytical pieces of research on environmental inequality linkages, including causes and consequences. By evaluating the adverse effect of environmental degradation both between and among countries, this article to the extensive body of literature and provides some essential environment-based recommendations that help in eradicating environmental inequality.

The environmental crisis. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P500_ESM_K3736-Demo/unit1/page_11.htm

The reality, as illustrated in this article, a high number of people living in poverty and the growing divide that arises between the benefiting and not benefiting from economic and industrial growth, the global environment is challenged by significant inequalities in production and the delivery of products and services. The environmental crisis manifestations cannot thus be interpreted as solely technical issues that need remedies from ecological ‘experts’; in fact, they are fundamentally human challenges that are directly connected with the subject of what it is to be humans.
References

Boyce, J. K., Zwickl, K., & Ash, M. (2016). Measuring environmental inequality. Ecological Economics, 124, 114-123. Retrieved from https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/05Chapter3.pdf

Harper, C., & Snowden, M. (2017). Environment and society: Human perspectives on environmental issues. Taylor & Francis.

Suša, O. (2019). Global dynamics of socio-environmental crisis: Dangers on the way to a sustainable future. Civitas-Revista de Ciências Sociais, 19(2), 315-336.

Temper, L., Demaria, F., Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2018). The Global Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas): ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 13(3), 573-584.

The environmental crisis. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P500_ESM_K3736-Demo/unit1/page_11.htm