I attached below the essay I wrote and the prompt so Please make sure that I am meeting the requirement of the prompt. And I need the essay to be a MAXIMUM of 8.5 pages. I have almost 10 pages I need to make it less. Also, I attached some comments if you could at least put one quotation for each part.
final_requirement.docx
quotes.docx
final_essay.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Simplified Final Prompt –
Part 1
• Do you describe and analyze 3 different environmental paradigms?
Conquest mentality, preservation/conservation, modern environmentalism,
environmental justice, Bruntland sustainability, corporate environmentalism
Context: Who? What? When? Where? Why? – Cite class material! § You must cite
course reading and lectures
Note: These are different ways of understanding humanity’s relationship with nature,
explain your stance
• Do you make an argument about which paradigm you think is most convincing?
“Convincing” as far as which underlying ideology can lead to solving climate
and environmental issues
A single paradigm may not be perfect; feel free to combine elements of other
paradigms to create your ideal paradigm (but make sure they don’t contradict)
Part 2
• Do you describe and analyze 2 different alternate worlds/proposals?
Technological fixes, free market/ corporate environmentalism, social democratic, ecosocialism
Context: Who? What? When? Where? Why? – Cite class material! § You must cite
course reading and lectures
Note: These are the practical solutions to climate change that have been proposed • Do
you make an argument about which solution(s) you think best align with your
paradigm?
Demonstrate how a belief in the paradigm you described in Part 1 is intrinsic to or
supportive of the proposed solution.
Part 3
• Do you offer a creative solution that creates an ideal world that could solve this
crisis?
Idea should be original but derived from the lessons of the class.
Not simple regurgitation of information, but an application of what you have
learned to a new solution
• Is your world different from today’s business-as-usual world?
Don’t describe a system already in place (that will presumably lead to the “Collapse of
Western Civilization”) but an idea for how the world can be improved.
Format
● 12-point font, Times New Roman, 1-inch margins, double spaced
● Not less than 7.5 pages and not more than 8.5 pages
● Bibliography guidelines
● If you are only using course material (lectures and readings) you do not need a
bibliography, only in-text citations
● To cite a lecture in-text, use the following format: (Vitz, “Name of Lecture”)
● If you’re citing external sources, you must include a bibliograph
● o See Purdue OWL for an extensive guide on how to cite different sources (including
podcasts!)
Environmental Justice
Must not forget the obstacle to environmental protection
everywhere: ties to polluting and extractive industry and
finance capital that funds activities
What is environmental justice?
Working class people and poor people around the world
who fight for their own healthy livable and productive
environments.
When You quote from this please use (Vits, Environmental Justice)
Modern Environmental
Where did the modern environmental movement in the US spring from?
An already long lineage of environmental concerns and science of
ecology (Aldo Leopold)
2. Natural scientists speaking out. Carson the first of many. Posed
challenge to chemists backed by industry. Cause of “anti-science”
prominent today. Return to this question in documentary
3. Political liberalism and the expansion of Welfare state/social democracy
4. Middle class Suburbanites respond to unhealthy environment
5. Examples of environmental crisis were plentiful
When You quote from this please use (Vitz, rise of environmentalism)
Criticisms of Corporate/neoliberal environmentalism
Bizarre logic of part of the problem suddenly becomes the major solution
Separates sustainability from questions of economic justice and
Environmental justice. Sustainability serves to sustain displacement and the proliferation of new
sacrifice zones
3. The sustainable practices reinforce the wasteful and polluting practices
a. Green niche markets
4. An ignorance of where much of wealth derives from in capitalist production Must locate new
natures and new sources of cheap labor. Streamlining can only go so far
When You quote from this please use (Vitz, Beyond Paris: Tech fixes and Corporate
Environmentalism)
Part I: Environmental Paradigms
Environmental Justice
Environmental justice is often described in terms of nondiscriminatory protection from
any forms of exposure to environmental hazards and toxins. It is however more
appropriate to recognize the underlying social determinants which lead to any such
inequities which result in various forms of environmental injustices at global as well as
national levels. This means that this form of justice is closely linked to questions that
touch on human rights, development, as well as democratic accountability (Magdoff &
Foster, 2011). Global trade rules usually fail when it comes to taking account of queries
on environmental justice and even systems that are self-regulated premised on fair
trading practices may end up reinforcing environmental and social injustice.
There are examples that illustrate how the discrimination axes that contribute to poor
communities ending up bearing most of the brunt of environmental injustices may
include not only race but also gender, caste, and class. They may also have various
emphases in developing societies since inequalities between countries that could be as
notable ad economic survival or integration within a global economy small peasant
farmers could be forced to cope with the pressures needed to adopt dangerous high
input agricultural approaches more so in terms of usage of pesticides in the absence of
capacity or resources to look after their health. Globally, use of asbestos as well as its
production carries on globally and while the asbestos related deaths or ailments are
much more likely to start reducing in developing countries because of legal restrictions
that have been put in place, mortality still continues in most countries. Most of these
deaths are as a result of a global failure to appropriately control the toxic material
because of vested interests which carry on extending the use asbestos. Flaws when it
comes to regulatory systems tend to allow poorly designed incineration plants to be
located near poor communities and need concerted civil society actions to effect
protests against such installations that are hazardous.
Therefore, environmental justice implies having in place a model on sustainable
development which integrates poverty alleviation, economic development, as well as
environmental protection. Such a development model recognizes the agency of
marginalized societies within changing their vulnerability conditions. It can thus be
stated that Environmental Justice is the meaningful as well as fair treatment of all
persons regardless of color, race, origin, or even income with respect to the
implementation, development, as well as enforcement of environmental regulations and
laws.
Corporate environmentalism
Corporate Environmentalism is a term that is used in reference to company-level efforts
that are aimed at reducing resource use and pollution, as well as efforts to preserve
natural habitats. Companies that adopt corporate Environmentalism normally pledge to
execute environmental actions that extend beyond the applicable legal requirements.
This form of environmentalism could be undertaken by organizations unilaterally or
collectively through an initiative that is sponsored by NGOs, firms, and/or governments.
Consequently, organizations’ motivations for corporate environmentalism cannot be fully
understood through examining government action alone. Scholars have looked into how
stakeholders pressure alongside company-level characteristics which include size or
profitability. Corporate Environmentalism instruments are usually supplied by nongovernmental and governmental actors.
Corporate Environmentalism can be looked at as a subset of the broader concept of
CSR or corporate social responsibility. Neoclassical economists usually suggest that the
main function of an organization is to maximize the shareholder value. On the contrary,,
scholars on CSR view organizations accountable to a variety of stakeholders who
include but are not restricted to shareholders. Even though CSR is not particularly
incompatible with the maximization of profit, proponents of CSR have recommended
that the organizations respond to the demands of the various stakeholders without
necessarily privileging one stakeholder over the others.
Environmental protection may be the primary component of a CSR program. Few
people will deny the fact that modern industrial processes exert a burden on the
environment for inputs through generating pollution or through degrading the
environmental sinks. Taking cue from political and scientific discourse, the organizations
started focusing on issues that touch on conservation of resources. Even though
resource conservation has remained a crucial dimension of corporate
environmentalism, contemporary research usually focuses on organizations’ response
to the problems that arise from pollution, particularly cutting down harm done to
communities and individuals. It could include activities such as addressing the landfill or
commons problem. In this perspective organizations are capable of externalizing costs
since the sinks whereby they deposit pollution do not particularly end up delineating
property rights.
The sociological perspective views corporate environmentalism as reflecting the norms
of appropriate behavior. Unlike the rational choices approach this particular perspective
does not view organizations assessing corporate environmentalism in terms of their cost
benefit. Organizations rather adopt corporate environmentalism in response to
socialization, learning as well as peer pressure. Sociologists tend to place emphasis on
the embedded nature of the organization in a variety of sociological networks which end
up disseminating environmental norms, offer information on the best environmental
practices as well as outlining the guideposts which the organizations ought to comply
with.
Modern Environmentalism
The modern environmentalist seeks a growing economy through embracing humanity’s
technical and scientific prowess, supporting industry. Such environmentalists are
usually fixated on the application of the most effective environmental technology in a bid
to minimize pollution or application of sound conservation planning to make sure that
the natural resources get harvested to ensure there is ecological integrity. However, the
anti-modern environmentalists place blame on the modern society or world for the
environmental issues that we are grappling with.
The modern environmentalists usually raise private resources or monies in a bid to
restore wetlands, fish habitats, stock the water bodies, plant trees, as well as repairing
any degraded pieces of land. They also lobby for the government conservation dollars
to be channeled towards real on the ground conservation as opposed to public
hearings. Groups like Ducks Unlimited as well as the Ontario Federation of Hunters and
Anglers have over the years managed to raise millions of dollars in private funding that
are targeted at projects which do a lot of good for nature. Most of the modern
environmentalists fish hunt as well as possess a deep understanding of animal behavior
and ecological processes.
On the other hand, the anti-modern environmentalists believe that modern life itself
should be deemed as the problem. In this regard, they believe modernism and industrial
development plays a direct role in the witnessed environmental degradation. These
environmentalists are often more concerned with processes as opposed to
environmental results. The modern environmentalists believe a clean as well as
improving environment could be achieved even in the midst of a thriving industrial base
or economy.
Part II: 2 different Alternate Worlds
Free market environmentalism places emphasis on the markets as a viable solution to
most of our current environmental issues. Its supporters assert that free markets could
end up being more successful than governments with their bureaucracy when it comes
to tackling environmental concerns. The growing interest in free market
environmentalism is somehow deemed ironic since environmental issues have usually
been viewed as a type of market failure (Guttmann, 2018). When it comes to the
conventional view, most environmental issues are due to decision makers that reduce
their expenses through polluting the people that are downstream or downwind. The
other environmental issues are brought about by the private decision makers being
unable to produce public goods since no one is required to pay in order to get the
benefits that arise from this preservation (Guttmann, 2018). Even though these issues
could be deemed real, increasingly evidence shows that governments usually fail in
their efforts to control pollution or to provision of public goods that are deemed to be at a
reasonable cost. The private sector is also believed to be more efficient or responsive
than the government to environmental demands.
The failures that have been witnessed on centralized government control in the Soviet
Union as well as most of Eastern Europe has had the effect of awakening more interest
within free market environmentalism as early as the 1990s. As the era of glasnost
removed the secrecy veil, reports on the media highlighted large swathes of areas
whereby brown haze was suspended in the air. Chemical fumes repeatedly affected
people’s eyes with drivers being forced to use headlights even in the middle of the day.
However, for markets to be effective when it comes to the environment, rights to every
significant resource ought to be clearly outlined or defined. Well-functioning markets
require comprehensive property rights. Local standards may differ since people with
similar preferences or the ones seeking out similar opportunities usually cluster
together. For example, in parts of the state of Montana, where the principle economic
activity is ranching, has been termed to be range country. In these areas, any person
that does not want the neighbor’s cattle disturbing them is allowed to fence off his or her
property. On the significantly large ranches within range country, this particular solution
is deemed to be much cheaper than attempting to fence of the whole ranch. However,
much of the state is not classified as range country. In these areas, the property right
standard is significantly different and it is the livestock owner’s duty to fence in his or her
livestock. Individuals residing in the different communities therefore have distinct
priorities that are based on goals that significantly differ between the two communities.
I am of the view that free market environmentalism could be a better way of tackling
environmental issues in the society. Whenever rights to the resources are defined and
swiftly defended against any forms of invasion, all corporations or individuals end up
having the incentive to evade problems that are linked to pollution. Whenever water or
air pollution damages an asset that is privately owned, the owners whose wealth is
directly threatened will benefit by seeing to it that the threat has been dealt with or
abated. For example, in Scotland and England, the right to sport fish as well as
commerce is a transferable right which is privately owned.
Part III: Solutions for the Crisis
Government timber concession policies, especially in countries located in tropical
regions, have had the effect of increasing the general prevalence of the predictably
unhealthy boom and eventual bust pattern in their forest vegetation. These policies
have nurtured the adverse possibility that far from it being a sustainable and optimal
economic and environmental developmental process, the boom and predictable bust
when it comes to forest sector development has managed to generate losses both
economically and environmentally. These economic losses are mainly due to the habit
of excessive rapid harvest, below par investments when it comes to the management of
forests, as well as inefficient processing of wood (Vincent, 2012). Two prominent sets of
governmental policies that have been witnessed mainly among the tropical timber
exporting jurisdictions are the most responsible for these issues.
The two policies have in commonality the impact of unhealthily suppressing timber and
tropical wood scarcity signals as well as the required responses to any of such crucial
signals. One set of these policies is closely related to what are termed as tropical timber
concessions. Among most tropical jurisdictions, the government owns all the forest
territories. A good example can be witnessed in South East Asia. Concessionaires
located in this part of the globe are mainly domestic firms or individuals and not
multinational entities drawn mainly from the western hemisphere. On the downside, the
applicable timber concession policies fail when it comes to combining the tenure of the
forest with a capture of the accurate stumpage value (Vincent, 2012). This seemingly
minor oversight or gap has the effect of preventing both the concessionaires and
government from earlier on detecting and subsequently responding to a rise in
stumpage values within their jurisdictions.
Even though governments in these regions are the legal owners, the stated fees that
they end up levying on extracted wood by licensed concessionaires bear no realistic
relation to the stumpage values. The fees levied are set arbitrarily and administratively
and they almost always end up being a small fraction of the true stumpage values.
Since the fees far lower than the actual stumpage value, the final values of the forests
as resources of these governments’ revenue have artificially shrunk. This artificial
reduction induces the same governments to lean towards favoring the conversion of the
same forests to other activities that would yield them more taxation revenue. The
artificial revenue reductions also mean that there is a reduction in the potential monies
that should be allocated for the purposes of forest management and conservation. This
lack of monies to be earmarked for forestry management in most tropical jurisdictions is
as a result of not so much reduced wood prices but from a failure by the governments to
capture the true accurate stumpage values. One issue to note is also that the easy
availability of numerous substitutes’ material for tropical wood or timber means that
global price could not rise even in the unlikely event that exporters of timber abided by
Guppy’s (1989) advice and fashioned a cartel. Studies have also shown that coming up
with a cartel like OPEC could in the long run hurt tropical timber exporting nations in
case the importing jurisdictions retaliated with the imposition of higher tariffs. Also,
having a cartel will not lead to an increase in the area of tropical cover.
To try and tackle this problem, the countries should flirt with the idea of eliminating
subsidies that are ingrained in these timber concessions as well as those that are aimed
at promoting activities that compete for the scarce forest land. Such a step may restrict
excessive forest harvest which may additionally produce more income for the
government and encourage sustainable management of forests.
Reference
Guttmann, R. (2018). Eco-Capitalism: Carbon Money, Climate Finance, and
Sustainable
Development. Springer.
Magdoff, F., & Foster, J. B. (2011). What every environmentalist needs to know about
capitalism: A citizen’s guide to capitalism and the environment. NYU Press.
Vincent R. J. (2012), The Tropical Timber Trade and Sustainable Development Science
Vol 256.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
