Student ID: 2919952
Word Count: 934
Climate change has been on the rise for the last century, and in the last thirty years, it has risen so significantly that the environment will never recover to what it once was (Tyagi & Garg, 2014). Climate change seeps into every aspect of political, economic, and social institutions; with capitalism weaved throughout these systems, it plays a huge role in the destruction of the environment. Along with western greed and globalisation, air and water pollution worsens daily (Bradshaw, 2021). This begs the question, do modern political and economic systems need to be dismantled in order to save the environment?
Given the vast and irreversible damage being done to the environment, environmentalists have a growing demand for governments to assess and change how their institutions affect the environment. Governments, however, show little willingness to change, with plans for America’s new Willow Project being released recently, which would generate enough oil to release 9.2 million metric tons of carbon pollution a year (Nilsen, 2023). A likely reason for states’ reluctance to change their means of energy and production is a type of game theory economists call a dove-hawk game (Grafen, 1997). This means governments are too scared to be the first to evolve clean and environmentally friendly production methods, which takes time and resources. These changes would initially force the economy to slow down before reaching the same rates again while being environmentally friendly (Snidal, 2011). States avoid this however, because of the fear that the drop in economic growth will affect political and economic institutions while allowing other states to progress (Grafen, 1997). However, what makes this an extension of game theory is that by taking the risk, everyone wins, but by avoiding risk, everyone loses (Snidal, 2011). This is because once one state decides to change for the good of the environment, other governments are likely to follow suit; this is because it does not benefit a government to maintain an environmentally harmful practice when their citizens want to improve the environment. This means that if one country was to adapt its practices to lower its carbon footprint; others would be inclined to do the same.
Increased globalisation has led to the deterioration of the environment, and the considerable increase in global trade over the past few years plays a significant role in increasing carbon emissions (Ehrenfeld, 2005). As increased international trade has resulted in significant demand rises, so has expanded the use of unsustainable means of production. Furthermore, the emissions put out by air and land travel in order to meet the increasing needs of growing populations have had lasting damage with air and land pollution (Tyagi & Garg, 2014). While globalisation improves international relations and creates strong bonds between countries by breaking borders, globalisation will further damage the environment if the plans are not sustainable and environmentally friendly (Clapp & Dauvergne, 2011).
Capitalism and the continually increasing consumption of a growing population mean that the means of production we use has significant effects on the environment (Cooper & Griffiths, 1994). With carbon emissions at an all-time high and over 70% of the earth’s surface and oceans damaged by climate change, it becomes a more pressing issue to change political and economic systems to prevent environmental collapse (Bradshaw, 2021). Economist Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand highlights that if people used what they needed and did not overconsume, the effects would be less dramatic (N. Hess, 2016). However, capitalism encourages those wealthy enough to own businesses to use cheap and unsustainable methods of production to create significant profits. So, with greed at the heart of the world economy, the environment stands very little chance.
When discussing climate change, western countries usually deflect their blame to more heavy hitters like China, who released over 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions in 2016, more than double that of the second-highest carbon emissions from America (Nations, 2017). While China’s emissions are shockingly high (Liu, et al., 2021), and have a devastating impact on Chinese air and land quality, the West’s role in using cheap Chinese labour plays a huge part in these emissions (Peerenboom, 2007). Across the world, goods are made and manufactured in China and then shipped and distributed worldwide (Vallery, 2022), providing cheap labour for companies keen to make a big profit. Furthermore, western countries outsourcing this labour means that the production methods can be unsustainable, as they are not blamed for the emissions put out by these factories. This means that states are not held accountable for the environmental damage that is done (Clapp & Dauvergne, 2011). Additionally, companies’ unethical means of production have little to no impact on themselves or their governments, as that harm is placed miles away from their consumers and does not directly affect them.
To conclude, the rate at which the environment is deteriorating is increasing and concerning. Therefore, the need for action becomes more imminent; still, the actions of government are slow and at times regressive, highlighted by current projects that could devastate the climate, by governments that have the funds to go green, and use solar and electric power. However, capitalism and globalisation and two influential and climate-threatening economic and political systems that make ideas such as the Willow Project feel redundant. This is because capitalism will remain without the removal of greed, and governments will not implement environmentally friendly means of production. Therefore, without restructuring the economy, the environment is doomed to fail, as, without strong and immediate action, relevant governments will not structure their institutions around environmental sustainability and growth.
Bibliography
Bradshaw, C. J. A., 2021. The Conversation. [Online]
Available at: https://theconversation.com/worried-about-earths-future-well-the-outlook-is-worse-than-even-scientists-can-grasp-153091
[Accessed 2023 02 08].
Clapp, J. & Dauvergne, P., 2011. Economic Growth in a World of Wealth and Poverty. Paths to a Green World, 2(1), pp. 91-97.
Cooper, M. & Griffiths, C., 1994. The Interaction of Population Growth and Environmental Quality. The American Economic Review, 84(2), pp. 250-254.
Ehrenfeld, D., 2005. The Environmental Limits to Globalization. Conservation Biology, 19(2), pp. 318-326.
Grafen, A., 1997. The hawk-dove game played between relatives. Animal Behaviour, 27(3), pp. 905-907.
Huppert, H. E., 2006. Extreme Natural Hazards: population growth, globalisation and environmental change. Philisophical Transactions , 364(1845), pp. -.
Liu, J., Jiang, Z. & Chen, W., 2021. Land misallocation and urban air quality in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research volume , 28(1), p. 58387–58404.
Lonergan, S., 2011. The Role of Environmental Degradation in Population Displacement, -: -.
- Hess, P., 2016. Economic growth and sustainable development. – ed. London: Taylor & Francis.
Nations, U., 2017. WorldOMeter. [Online]
Available at: https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
[Accessed 10 10 2022].
Nilsen, E., 2023. CNN Politics. [Online]
Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/07/politics/willow-project-alaska-oil-explained-climate/index.html
[Accessed 2023 03 10].
Peerenboom, R., 2007. China Modernizes: Threat to the West or Model for the Rest?. 1 ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Snidal, D., 2011. The Game Theory of International Politics. World Politics, 38(1), pp. 25-27.
Tyagi, S. & Garg, N., 2014. Environmental Degradation: Causes and Consequences. European Researcher, 81(2), pp. 1491-1495.
Vallery, 2022. What Percentage Of The World’s Products Are Made In China?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.cmhi.com.hk/what-percentage-of-the-worlds-products-are-made-in-china/#:~:text=Nearly%20a%20third%20of%20the%20world%E2%80%99s%20goods%20are,for%20roughly%2030%20percent%20of%20the%20country%E2%80%99s%20GDP.
[Accessed 10 03 2023].