Change is on on-going one, at the expense of Planet Earth and its inhabitants, who are destined to suffer the consequences of Climate Change. Naomi Klein wrote a very interesting article called “Capitalism vs the Climate” on 9 November 2011, whereby she quoted Chris Horner, a representative of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, during a seminar on Climate Change held in Washington DC late June of 2011, uttering that Climate Change was a plot to deprive Americans of their freedoms and hard-earned wealth. In order to comprehend the complexity of the different statements of political parties in pushing their agendas, it is vital to understand their political policies. Capitalism is dormant in countries like USA and Europe and is defined as an economic and political system, dictated by World Trade with the main objective to make profit, whereas, Socialism is a system of self-empowerment of a community or state as a whole.
We need to address the vast differences in opinions of the parties involved in bringing awareness of the perils threatening our planet. By comparing Capitalism to Socialism, and Republican Policies to Democratic Policies as in the USA, it provides us with insight into the complexity of this life-threatening controversy. The Purpose of our research is to identify and compare key ideas to understand the scope of the threat. Through industrial and privately-owned entities, whose main objective is to make profit, governments are motivated to create profitmaking schemes to benefit off of Free Market Trade. Political agendas of these entities influence social and economic issues of a country which dictate public opinion, and can indoctrinate citizens into a false sense of reality and security. What is the alternative?. Socialism?. A system comprising of a range of economic and social characteristics, focussing on social ownership through increased production and promotion of workers’ self-management in the public, corporate and collective sectors of a country’s equity which is dominant in countries like Iceland, Russia and Denmark.
It appears that US Democrats endorse global warning change as a threat to nature and human civilization, whilst US Republicans, argue that global warming is merely used as a tool by the Democrats to promote their green ideology. As a result, the climate change ideology has lost momentum in past decades, resulting in the near-total annihilation of the once active movement. The Fossil Fuel industry has never been stronger and is continuing to expand its resources, negating the threat of Climate Change. Republicans believe that scientific theories do not support scientific proof, although the proof is being substantiated by date. They believe that there is a lack of scientific proof that climate change is brought about by man’s interference in nature, playing into the hands of the Capitalists who do not want anything to interfere in their moneymaking policies. On the other hand, the pro-conservationists are continuously campaigning to swing public opinion that self-enrichment will ultimately and unequivocally result in self-destruction.
Due to the fact that environmental protection is left in the hand of the free market trade, who has inherited this corporate and social responsibility, the only way moving forward is for the free market ideology to change and compromise. By adopting a new approach, governments and conglomerates can change public and economic policies and attitudes through a combined effort between Government and Community intervention. Global conglomerates and all Governments of countries will have to re-evaluate their spending priorities, review their policies and business models, philosophies and ideologies. This is where the role and influence of a specific state/government is crucial. It is being suggested that the only way this can be enforced onto world conglomerates, corporations and industries, is to impose a taxonomy structure on those entities, whereby governments assume the role of aggregating and disseminating information regarding externalities and shadowing prices of social goods or taxation on externality like emissions and non-recycling waste. Governments must also take on the role of prescribing to, and encouraging corporations and industries to use unilateral output standards and technologies to conform to the drastic changes required to achieve environmental protection to realize the environmental ideology. The question is, “What are realistic expectations of government?”.
The global challenge for Public and Private Sectors demands drastic action to curb the environmental crisis, and can only be achieved through affordable and extensive transport systems, to include all users of transport in order to reduce emissions on a mass scale. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of all communities, national and international, to plan and reorganise their wants and needs, based on sustainability and the environment. By realising and respecting our limitations, we can minimise the use of fossil fuel and abandon the never-ending chase after fame and fortune.
Through the implementing of a collective and international Energy Descent Action Plan, it is possible for corporations and governments to optimise agricultural activities through planning and re-organising communities and providing work opportunities in local production of goods and farming produce, which can feed local markets, rather than through massive import and export by means of cargo ships, heavy duty trucks and air cargo. This unnecessary emission of greenhouse gases will force corporations to comply with regulations to impose restrictions on the amount of carbon emissions. This will force development of infrastructure such as housing and public transport in local communities where production is key. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty/agreement founded in 1997, and commits states to take part in a collective effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, effective from 2005.
Limiting imports of cheap goods will ensure employment opportunities in the Public Sector comprising of industries and an urban workforce, as well as in Private Sector comprising of farmers and the rural workforce. This turn-over will be difficult and time consuming. In the future, hopefully, advancement in technology will reduce transport costs, that hugely affect “distance penalties” being imposed, and will promote local proximity of corporations and industries that produce local, but competing products, whilst improving employment to local communities. Geographical concentration of corporations and industries will promote knowledge, capabilities and skills to the communities.
Although leading free-market capitalistic countries promote their exploitation of Planet Earth, voices like the UN make themselves heard by saying that Fossil Fuel subsidies are wrecking the world. The RSA has also announced that Fossil Taxation is implemented with immediate effect. Congratulations!. May this struggling, upcoming country who is largely reliant on coal for energy generation set an example to the hard-right capitalistic countries of the world. Every honest effort to solve the emissions crisis is a step in the right direction to deter Climate Change.
Falsifying data serves no purpose where Climate Change is concerned, but it seems to be the order of the day. It is the empty promises and good intentions, without serious action, that cause the high emissions of greenhouse gases. New Zeeland is one of the countries guilty of evading their emissions responsibilities whilst pretending to be serious about Climate Change. Emission cuts and carbon restrictions remain an economic challenge, and it appears countries rather conceal or adapt manipulated statistics, than applying the correct policies in order to reach an acceptable level of combatting global warning. Countries regularly declare their intentions to achieve their goals for the future, playing for time, by setting futuristic goals at 2025, others at 2050, without revealing their plans and methods needed to achieve same. Most countries like Mexico and New Zeeland, face staggering financial liabilities and carbon taxes, even when aiming for 50 % or 80 % reduction in emission cuts. Achieving carbon neutrality anytime in the future, remains an empty ambition, because, reducing emissions appear to be more costly than anticipated. It might already be too late for the planet and its inhabitants. Man has, and always will be, his own worst enemy. Will we be able to save ourselves from ourselves?
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here.