CH 64, NYT and WP

 The readings of this week were very informative and cleared the environmental subject even more. By reading the pages in introduction, I could start to see the relation between the climate and globalization. It shows the two sides, one where globalization makes damages like consumerism and industries, but also the good part were it allows cooperation and activism internationally. It is a great start to the paper of environmental movements, like the NGOs, and give these movements grow trans-nationally once we figure that the environmental issues do not see borders and don't affect only countries that are pollutants. 

In chapter 64, Paul Wapner talks about Greenpeace, one perfect example of the organizations mentioned above. He explains that Greenpeace works across borders, in a global effort to heal the environment. They use media campaigns and their propaganda to pressure governments and corporations to change policies. Wapner talks about them as political globalists, working for the world and not just a state. 

Then, the Barbados article puts together these ideas, and was one of the greatest news that I read in a while. The Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, literally made a revolution in the talk about climate and globalization, defending her State but bringing ideas that can change the world. She saw her country drowning in debt, always rebuilding because of natural disasters and always renting money to do it. The problem is that this disasters are becoming more often because of climate change, and the debt is rising and turning into a cycle, that can end with the country breaking. She, with the help of scholars that study recovering from debt, proposed an idea to IMF and World Bank, financial institutions that rent the money and in harder conditions to small countries like Barbados. For Mottley, these institutions together with the wealthy countries should contribute more to the adaptation to climate disasters, with cheaper financing and debt relief. Bridgetown Initiative, her proposal pushes the idea that the countries that are less harmful to the environment are paying the price for the climate change, and the world should see this and not make a profit of it. 

To end, the China article continues in the idea of the environmental vs profit, in this case, with the lithium-ion batteries and graphite. We use them everyday in our electronics,  and their massive production in China is causing pollution in the villages around. People living there expose that black dust covers their homes, clothes and farms, killing crops and poising water. The article show that although electric cars and electronics can bring clean energy, the cost of it it's dirtying a lot of populations' environments.