Hello, I finished an essay but I haven’t met all the requirements and the essay is too long. Can we trim the essay a page or 2, and MAKE SURE all the requirements are met from the list below. Also make any changes to my grammar or spelling since it is my rough draft. Attached will be my rough draft. here is the prompt: Read carefully. There is a lot of detail here, so be sure you are addressing all aspects of the prompt. This final essay has one key objective: to encourage you to reflect on what you’ve learned the second part of this class and think creatively about a future without global warming and without global environmental crisis (think, global environmental problems). This is an opportunity for you to articulate your own environmental ethics, your own “good” society based on the class material. Like the midterm, you MUST employ ideas and examples from both lectures and readings (and multimedia, if appropriate). The essay is worth 80% of your grade. It must be 7.5-8 pages (double-spaced with 12point font), Points will be deducted if it exceeds 8.5 pages or is less than about 7.5 pages. It is a three-part essay. In the first part, you will need to give a brief summary of 3 of the major environmental paradigms covered in the class and make an argument for the one(s) that you consider most convincing (that is, able to address the environmental/climate crisis). The major paradigms were covered in lecture. They include conquest mentalities, preservation and conservation, modern mainstream environmentalism, environmental justice, and the two principal meanings of sustainability (Bruntland’s sustainable development vision and free-market/corporate sustainability). Note: it might behoove you to conclude that more than one is very convincing, but instead of defending them separately, use your critical thinking skills to bring them together to form your own environmental ethics. Be sure that if you synthesize two or more paradigms that your new formulation does not have contradictions. For instance, in an extreme case, the conquest paradigm does not square very well with modern environmentalism for reasons that should be evident from lecture and readings. In the second part, you must define and discuss two of the alternative visions/proposed solutions that we have been covering during weeks 9 and 10. These are current political (or technological) projects/visions with origins in the existing paradigms listed above. They are: technological fixes/climate engineering, corporate/free market environmentalism, public-private partnerships, various “social democratic” alternatives, and eco-socialism. You do not need to discuss all of these projects/visions, but you must describe 2 of them and explain which one of all of them aligns best with the paradigm you’ve defended from part 1.The third part is connected to the first two. Let your answers to parts 1 and 2 guide you forward in this part. You will answer the following question: Reflecting on and using as evidence (where appropriate) lectures, readings, notes, and class discussions, etc., what would a global society without disastrous climate change and acute environmental crisis look like? You may consider answers to the following more specific questions to devise your new society. How would we get there? In other words, who would be the agents bringing about your new more environmentally ethical future and what political/cultural obstacles would need to be overcome? What kind of polity (that is, government) would it require? What would the relationship between government and economy be? How would people interact with their environment? How would people relate to each other (for example, relations between, say, classes, genders, or ethnicities)? You might opt to be utopian or idealistic in your thinking; you might opt to be more pragmatic, or some synthesis of the two. Suggested page length for each part:Part I: 3.5-4 pagesPart II: 1.5-2 pagesPart III: 2-3 pagesTotal: 7.5-8.5 pagesYou will need to use concrete evidence from lectures, readings, and discussions to substantiate your arguments and defend your claims. Do not lean too heavily on readings over lecture, and vice versa. You should strike a balance.Think carefully and consider and weigh the class material, that is, the different environmental paradigms and political projects that seek to solve the climate and environmental crisis. Make connections across lectures and readings to devise your stance and to articulate your own“alternative world”. This is your essay. Use your imagination in the second part, an imagination that stems from your knowledge gained in this class. This is your opportunity (humanity’s only opportunity?) to dream big! Think for yourself, employing material and evidence drawn from the second half of the class. You may use outside material, but like last time, only to complement material from this class. Not to replace it. If you bring in an outside source(s), please provide a works cited page (bibliography) of those sources. In general, Please cite all evidence that you use, including lectures, within the text and at the end of the corresponding sentence or paragraph. Here are some examples: (Guha, 87); (“Clean Energy Plays Dirty”); (Merchants of Doubt); (Lecture, “Modern Environmentalism”)
intl_101_final.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Climatic disasters are bound to increase if better sustainability solutions are not identified
and adopted. These approaches should solve short-term and long-term challenges that are faced
as a result of environmental degradation. Many ecological paradigms seek to find a better
solution to global sustainability challenges. This paper discusses a number of them including
modern mainstream environmental environmentalism, environmental justice and the two
principal meanings of sustainability. It establishes that a combination of the Brundtland
sustainable development goals and environmental justice by use of social democratic solutions
can produce an ideal globally sustainable community.
Modern mainstream environmentalism is a development of the prevailing idea of
retreating into the wilderness. It is a different consequent of the premise of commodifying nature
for industrial purposes or for serving the needs of human beings. Regardless, it’s precursor can be
thanked for the establishment of conservancies, parks, and national monuments before paving the
way for the modern movement. Modern environmentalists weave through societal beliefs,
cultures, commercial values of natural resources and politics of protecting them. However, it is
limited in terms of racial, social classificational and gendered intersections with the environment.
Native and indigenous input is rarely considered in modern environmentalism. Views on various
impactful events such as drought, pollution, food insecurity, endemics, privatization of basics
such as seeds and water, the rise of sea levels, extraction of fossil fuels as separate from the
human society. As a result, there are campaigns to make it more multifaceted, intersectional and
involving of the underprivileged and the minority (Martínez-Alier, 2012). Mainstream
environmentalism’s “support for action on climate has long been broad but shallow” (Aronoff,
Battistoni, Cohen, & Riofrancos, 2019). Mainly, it emphasizes that corporations taking
sustainability responsibilities will solve environmental problems (Magdoff & Foster, 2011b).
Fueled by the recent commoditization of sustainable energy such as wind and water,
environmental justice is a modern embodiment of historical indigenous rebellion against political
and territorial domination, only this time it is by corporations and not states of empires. Recent
advances towards these solutions to sustainable sources of energy have led to conflicts such as
green grabbing and carbon violence as nature is marketized as a business strategy by private
corporations (Valdivia & Sellwood, 2015). It is the modern actionable force against the
imposition of increasing environmental risks on human beings based on their disadvantaged
class, race or country. Fundamentally, environmental justice is based on sustainability and fair
use of the environment for all people affected by it (Magdoff & Foster, 2011a). Fashioned from
the need to take on those with capital armed with more than rhetoric for the development of new
plans that regulate everyone and treats them fairly by distributing resources equally. This
momentous solution fights against institutionalized racism, economic inequalities and climatic
changes simultaneously. It recognizes that indigenous communities are the primary guardians of
their environment and therefore should be empowered to do so (Klein, 2016). Environmental
justice is against using the powerless natives as tools of exploiting their environments especially
because they alone pay for its degradation with more or less meager benefits (Jones, 2017).
There are two basic principle definitions of sustainability. Developmental sustainability
adopted by states in Brundtland sustainable development goals (SDGs) and corporate
sustainability practiced by corporations. In 1987, The Brundtland Commission described
sustainable development as realizing current needs with deep regard for future generation. As a
result, various programs were created after that to ensure nations and entities played a part in
these initiatives. For instance, the seventeen SDGs to be implemented between 2015 and 2030
were more concrete and specific in terms of protecting the environment. They challenged nations
to adopt policies that steered the world towards better and environmental-friendly interactions
with nature. United Nation’s agenda after 2015 also included 169 targets that assisted in the
measuring achievement of the seventeen SDGs. Before that, 189 members at the Millennium
Summit has committed to 8 development goals assessed after 15 years concerning mitigating the
spread of the pandemic HIV/AIDS, decreasing child deaths, gender parity and reducing extreme
poverty by 50 percent. Before that a voluntary (Guttmann, 2018).
Environmentalism through free markets utilizes the responsiveness of markets or
corporates entities in dealing with environmental issues. Its sheer argument is that compared to
the government, free markets are more successful and able to sustain the environment.
Free-market environmentalism was popularized more after the collapse of centralized
governments of the Societ Union and Eastern Europe, especially their failure in protecting their
citizens from environmental hazards. Definition of resource property rights is essentially the
source of power for free-market environmentalism to work. The more defendable and divestible
the resource is to their owners, the more motivated they will be to protect them. As harmful
practices and exposures such as pollution and degradation affect the value of the resource
(Magdoff & Foster, 2011b).
Environmental Justice approaches are perhaps easily integrated with the sustainable
development goals of Brundtland solutions. With environmental justice actively against
unsustainable extraction of biomass through deforestation, land grabbing, over-fishing,
exploiting natives in the process sustainability goals can be easily achieved (Martínez-Alier,
2012). These goals are similar to the objectives of SDGs in Brundtland approaches. In every
essence, environmental justice solutions are more subjective solutions to strategies designed in
UN conventions and sustainability goals set for different timelines. They integrate the global
environmental concerns with those of locals by helping indigenous fight for their territories and
ensuring public disproportioned resources are fairly shared with the underprivileged. In the end,
combining individual successes of environmental justice adds up into realized sustainable goals
developed in Brundtland conventions.
Eco-socialism is the amalgamation of ecological sustainability goals with social,
economic goals of a society. It stresses on the social utility of natural resources and fights the
concept of their ownership. Eco-Socialistic approaches regulate usage of natural resources by
reducing them to their primary metabolism with human beings. Meaning, they are used as much
as they are needed. This approach is emphasized with an objective to satisfy current and future
needs generation-wise. One sustainable way eco-socialistic solutions might strive to effect is the
creation of new employment opportunities for those displaced from industrial firms after the
massive efforts to pursue more greener solutions and to rely on small-scale production (Magdoff
& Foster, 2011a).
Among other resources such as electricity, eco-socialists would work towards the reversal
of the privatization of water distribution making it accessible to all and controlled and managed
by the public for their interest and benefit. Eco-socialism would find sustainable solutions to
satisfy worldwide energy needs using renewable energy sources such as the sun, water, and wind
by eliminating the use of fossil and biofuels and nuclear energy. In the meantime, eco-socialists
would begin with distributing profits acquired from fossil fuels by instituting carbon taxes where
all dividends are shared by the public enforcing sustainability by conservation (Magdoff &
Foster, 2011a).
Social democracy is a new form of democratic governance where responsibilities are
emphasized towards fellow human beings, the community and other societies around the world.
Socially involved planning shall be executed at every level owned and run by the people
themselves. A
t the heart of it, social democratic solutions shall foster social ownership,
orchestrated by the working class to satisfy the need of the community. These solutions involve
radical changes in self-governing communities. Decision-making on the management of
community infrastructure as well as provisions is then decentralized. So doing helps the mass
participation in satisfying society needs (Magdoff & Foster, 2011a).
Social democratic solutions have to meet all the needs of the people while upholding the
social utility of natural resources and facilitating a socially engaging climate for all community
members. Better social welfare systems are characteristic of these solutions where healthcare,
social security, food accessibility, and employment are secured. Fundamentally, social
democracy pushes capitalism to its bottom line and beyond in terms of sustainability placing
humanity before capital. Social democratic approaches would perhaps be the best solutions that
integrate better with both environmental justice and Brundtland paradigms essentially because it
supports institutionalized decision-making processes such as those needed by Brundtland,
capitalistic and democratic economies such as the United States. It achieves these while still
paving the way for a radical socialistic change towards empowering the minorities through
socialism and democracy as a primary principle of environmental justice (Magdoff & Foster,
2011a).
Much of the current environmental issues are due to the race to accumulate more capital.
However, by focusing on things that must be done instead of the limits of capitalism, an
environmentally safe world can be realized within the century. Only by reforming the current
democracies onto social democracies can these efforts of sustainability defeat the pullbacks of
capitalism and bureaucracy. Social democracy will emphasize duties to one another and
communities within and beyond borders. This form of the ruling will be owned and ran by the
people themselves and not a bureaucracy (Magdoff & Foster, 2011a). Boycotts, strikes, and
demonstrations can help win significant but small-scale concessions that will improve issues here
and there but locally. They can be used to enforce various no-carbon regulations. Broad
coalitions consolidated from efforts of acquiring short-term material winnings can help people
obtain enough political power to enforce long-term sustainability efforts (Aronoff et al., 2019).
Distribution of the basics, such as food, water, land, security, housing, and healthcare, should
focus on satisfying human needs and not rely on forces of the market capital control. Such a
world will realize the vanity and impossibility of endless accumulation of capital. The new
egalitarian society will adopt various desirable characteristics of capitalism such as the
“self-reinforcing character” only this time it will be mutually tied with the long-term needs of
nature and humanity (Magdoff & Foster, 2011a). By utilizing the anger, people may be feeling
from the inability of the current capitalistic rule to uphold sustainable solutions to the endangered
environment using socialism that shall have holistic solutions to both human and natural
problems (Klein, 2016). Such gradual changes from fundamental causes of unsustainable
practices will help deviate from “patterns of production and consumption, housing and transit,
agriculture and trade that fuel global capitalism” (Aronoff et al., 2019).
It is only logical to acknowledge that the environmental challenges cannot be efficiently
dealt with by the current polity.Efforts should be made towards socially democratic societies
were bureaucracy controlled, and control of production and politics are decentralized and
managed by people in their communities. A self-governing community with the power over their
infrastructure and engaged residents who participate in the decision-making process can easily
uphold sustainable solutions that are mutually beneficial to them, nature and future generations
(Magdoff & Foster, 2011a). Such a world will have a more powerful Left than Right (Aronoff et
al., 2019). The social democracy will easily bring agendas of redistribution to the table and
enforce the will of the people (Klein, 2016).
The government will have to perform politics that are mutually reinforcing in terms of
social relations, nature, and labor processes. It shall also have within it democratic regulations
targeting the economy to ensure equality, the satisfaction of all needs of citizens, empower social
and not the private utility of natural resources and facilitate social engagement in the economy
(Magdoff & Foster, 2011a). The government will also have to find ways of providing sustainable
energy and satisfactory jobs at first while controlling the use of fossil fuels. It shall also support
and acknowledge the leadership of indigenous communities, support racial and gender justice
and provide for all essential and necessary goods and infrastructure. The government will be
required to spend more than it does today because human and environmental needs come before
those of capital, secure jobs for all and decarbonize the whole economy (Aronoff et al., 2019).
People would be expected to use natural resources socially without ownership. They
would only be regulated to use just as much as it is needed, all which a particular community
decides purely through its local consensus. Use of resources will be mutually beneficial with
sustainability at the core and communal satisfaction marking the limit of use (Magdoff & Foster,
2011a).
After the success of environmental justice, there will be less imposed risks to people
based on their race, ethnicity, gender, social class, or background. There will be more communal
living with smaller cities supporting close living of people and easy small-scale production and
access to food and other necessities. Movement between cities would be easy using rail mass
transit, hence less dependence on the use of fossil-fueled cars. People will live close to their
workplaces and schools supporting engagement and interaction of diverse people. Sustainability
will have brought forth the preservation of better communal and recreational facilities, and the
weather would be favorable for most outdoor activities With such sustainability, the egalitarian
community shall not experience social, economic or cultural despite using fewer resources per
person (Magdoff & Foster, 2011a).
In summary, this paper has established that by combining SDGs developed in successive
Brundtland UN summits with localized environmental justice efforts through a social democratic
construct, an ideal globally sustainable community can be realized. By discussing various
environmental paradigms and solutions as well as discussing attributed of social democracy in
the ideal society, this paper has offered specific steps, challenges and rewards of combining these
three elements to obtain environmental and human-oriented objectives set by most nations today.
References
Aronoff, K., Battistoni, A., Cohen, D. A., & Riofrancos, T. (2019, February 5). A Green
New Deal to Win Back Our Future. Retrieved from
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/green-new-deal-climate-change-policy
Guttmann, R. (2018). Eco-capitalism: Carbon Money, Climate Finance, And Sustainable
Development( 1st ed., p. 321). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jones, B. (2017, August 5). Child miners aged four at Congo cobalt mine. Retrieved from
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764208/Child-miners-aged-four-living-hellEarth.html
Klein, N. (2016, November 9). It was the Democrats’ embrace of neoliberalism that won it
for Trump. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-seal
ed-americas-fate
Magdoff, F., & Foster, J. B. (2011a). An Ecological Revolution Is Not Just Possible—It’s
Essential. In What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism
(pp.
125–144). New York City, NY: NYU Press. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qfm89.9
Magdoff, F., & Foster, J. B. (2011b). Can Capitalism Go Green? In What Every
Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism
(pp. 95–122). New York City,
NY: NYU Press. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qfm89.8
Martínez-Alier, J. (2012). Environmental Justice and Economic Degrowth: An Alliance
between Two Movements. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 23(1), 51–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2011.648839
Valdivia, G., & Sellwood, S. A. (2015, August 8). Not so “peacefully” green. Retrieved from
https://nacla.org/news/2015/08/07/not-so-%E2%80%9Cpeacefully%E2%80%9D-green
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
