The Washington Post article gives important information about the true cost of everyday electronic items. Most people look at an electric car or cellphone as a use of clean energy, but that is far from correct. Places providing the materials needed have to suffer for providing them. Villages desperate for job opportunities deal with graphite dust in their air causing unsafe air to breath, crops covered in graphite, and anything you can imagine ending up polluted. The water can end up unsafe to drink, wildlife can die off and citizens have to choose between living in a society like that or job security. This article shows us that products considered to be “green” aren't really that good for the environment. This does not apply to every product, but shows that exploitation can be hidden even when things this bad are happening.
The New York Times article shows the true effects climate change can have, and how it is not only the environment that can suffer. The example used is the country of Barbados who is at constant risk of major weather events, and rising seas. Barbados is in need of constant investment to fight these vulnerabilities. The issue is being able to afford these investments with their debt constantly growing.This raises the issues with organizations like the IMF who are less likely to support these countries with less money because of their lack of ability to make a return. Larger powers like the US can more easily borrow funds from the IMF when areas like Barbados suffer.
In chapter 64 the Greenpeace is talked about which is a global organization that focuses on environmental issues. They will challenge government decisions, large corporations, and institutions. Greenpeacee is able to do this by the power they have built up by globalizing and building a worldwide network. This shows how globalization can be used to have a positive impact on regions, when usually we just see the damage so many large companies cause.
I agree with a lot of what you said, especially about the hidden cost of “green” technology. I think people often believe that electric cars and phones are completely clean but the graphite mining article shows that the pollution is just happening somewhere else. It’s unfair that communities near these mines have to deal with polluted air and water just so the rest of the world can use these products. I think there has to be a better way to go about this because although the end product is beneficial, the way in which we get there is not.
ReplyDeleteYour point about Barbados is also really important. It seems wrong to me that countries like Barbados, which didn’t contribute much to climate change, are the ones struggling the most with the impacts. At the same time, they have less financial support because they’re already in debt, which just makes the situation worse. It is like a never ending circle of them being in debt due to little help from the IMF and World Bank despite the fact they contribute so little to these climate impacts. It definitely feels like an unfair system.
I also liked your point about Greenpeace because it shows that globalisation isn’t only negative. While global companies can cause a lot of environmental damage, global organisations like Greenpeace can also bring attention to these problems and push for change. Although it definitely also has an impact on governments as they are put under pressure to adapt their polices.