Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Society as the Greatest Threat to the Environment
For the past two centuries, the world has gone through rapid change and development. This change was first brought about by the industrial revolution in the 19th century that led to the use of heavy machinery in the production process. The industrial revolution needed a lot of energy, which brought the mining of coal and other fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels and emissions from the industries began adversely affecting the environment. In the 20th century, technological growth, just as the Industrial Revolution, has impacted the environment. The use of electronic devices had had an impact on the increase in solid waste. Technology bought economic development leading to urbanization and an increase in population. Agricultural activities increased, and farming modes changed, leading to pesticides and fertilizers impacting the environment negatively. It is safe to say that human activities have led to environmental degradation, pollution, and climate change that is seen today. This paper will look at how society itself is the greatest threat to the environment and science’s failure to solve these environmental issues.
Planned Obsolescence
By the 1950s, solid waste became a menace to big cities because they did not know where to dump this waste. For example, in New York City, the waste was so much that the mayor decided to dump the waste in other towns and cities in exchange for monetary gain (Steinberg 225). In the year 2000, Virginia’s state received 3.4 million dollars to allow a waste management company to dump in 1000 acre landfill (Steinberg 225). The waste dump fill for New York was so big that it could be seen from outer space. The success of capitalism brought about an increase in solid waste. The United States economy was growing, and obsolescence in products facilitated this growth and increased waste. For example, the turntables were made obsolete by introducing compact disk players into the market (Steinberg 236). This trend was picked up by manufacturers of different industries, including cars, resulting in people dumping old versions to get new ones. This method was very profitable and still is but to a significant detriment to the environment through the rise of solid waste.
The rise of planned obsolescence started in the 1920s when Alfred Sloan, the then-president and CEO of general motors, realized that durability is bad for business (Steinberg 226). This realization came to him when their competitor Ford industries boosted durable cars that didn’t require one to buy another car. Thus, general motors began producing cars with different designs and changes now and then to make the cars appear different to entice customers. They would make changes to the tail wings, the hood design, and wheels to make the previous cars obsolete in a design sense (Steinberg 227). General Motors took this concept a little further by designing components that would fail fast. They made headlight bulbs that would wear out faster and tested this out. General Motors went a step further by making completely new models enticing buyers to trade older cars for the new designs every year.
The concept of introducing obsolescence has been incorporated in different industries today, from fashion, technology, and automotive industries. In fashion, it has brought an industry called Fast Fashion, where the company used petroleum-based products and plastics to make cheap trendy clothes. Fast fashion products are not durable, so they require constant buying, resulting in solid waste. The same concept has been incorporated into the tech industry in producing electronic devices (Proske, Marina, et al. 1). The devices being produced have a durability limit of just a couple of years. In addition to this, companies are releasing new models each year, making the previous models obsolete. This planned obsolescence has been incorporated in the industry to raise profit but a significant detriment to the environment. Society has accepted this trend as a norm without realizing the effects, and in so doing, it is actively participating in the destruction of the environment.
Neoliberal Globalization and Environmental Degradation
Neoliberal Globalization is the spread of free markets and free trade economic models that encourage privatization, lower trade barriers and eliminate tariffs. Neoliberal Globalization seeks to eliminate government influence in trade by reducing state-owned corporations and government spending in trade. The spread of the Neoliberalism from the 1970s adversely affected the poor and developing countries (Girdner and Kalim 2). This is because the dominant economies, especially the western countries, benefited from this free market. The dominant economies had gone through an industrial and technological revolution and were able to produce goods cheaply. Free markets allow these economies to flood the developing economies with cheap products killing their industries and local economies, leading to unemployment and poverty. Poverty is brought about by Neoliberalism’s ideology, which focuses on large scale production, especially in agriculture, limiting small scale farmers.
Neoliberal Globalization emphasizes extensive scale agriculture from developing countries to cater to the needs of the western economies. Large-scale farming requires machine specialization and pesticides, fertilizers, and many chemicals to sustain production (Girdner and Kalim 2). The drive to use these fertilizers and pesticides is fueled by the large private corporations that produce these products. The continuous use of these fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm chemicals harm the environment. These chemicals remain in the soil due to decades of use and are washed away by rainwater inside the ground, streams, rivers, and lakes (Carson 12). For example, it is estimated that 7 million pounds of parathion, a highly toxic insecticide, is sprayed on the orchards in California despite the hazardous effects on humans (Carson 20). These chemicals find their way in bodies of fish, birds, other animals, and even humans. The immediate impact is the death of animals and the disturbance of the ecosystem. To humans, this had led to the rise of diseases such as cancer, leading to suffering and death. There is an overlook over the effects of these chemicals on the environment because of the revenue these corporations generate. The deliberate use of these chemicals by organizations shows the lack of concern the society has for the environment on the face of a choice between profit and preservation of the environment.
The effects caused by these chemicals can be seen in the environment by the death of rivers, lakes, and the ecosystem they support. For example, in Kenya, Lake Naivasha was a tourist attraction due to the sites for birds, freshwater, and fish (Girdner and Kalim 15). Due to the continuous use of pesticides on the surrounding flower farms, these chemicals found their way into the river, causing the death of fish and birds’ disappearing. Climate change has also led to the lake shrinking by 25%. This case is just one example among many that can be seen worldwide (Girdner and Kalim 15). The use of these pesticides and chemicals has led to the resistance in pests and diseases among agriculture, leading to a new biotechnology field. Biotechnology is a field proposed to be the third wave of food regime in the world (Pechlaner, Gabriela, and Gerardo 351). The use of technology to develop crops and animals resistant to pests and diseases sounds like a good idea, but there are some concerns. Genetically engineered crops are an insult to the environment because they came up due to the destruction of the “normal” crops. The effects of these crops on the human and animal bodies have not been studied, and if studies, there is no enough evidence to support it. The regulations that are being proposed to regulate the industry still favor large corporations (Pechlaner et al. 365). Considering the current food regime support for large organizations, then that suggestion cannot be smiled upon.
Economic Development and Environmental Degradation and the Effects
Economic development has both positive and negative effects on the environment. There is a theory that economic development can be a solution to environmental degradation. This theory is the Kuznets Curve, which proposes that environmental degradation increases with income but eventually, as income increases, the degradation slows down (Stern, Michael and Edward 1151). This theory does hold much promise when the current environmental situation is considered. The developed economies like the western economies are still polluting the environment way more than the developing economies. Economic development is fueled by technology, agriculture, trade, and exploiting resources. A combination of these factors cannot be in favor of the environment.
Economic development leads to urbanization, which comes with its effects. The first is the encroachment of humans on natural habitats (Goldfinger 1). There is the clearance of forest for settlements and to facilitate agriculture for the growing population. This encroachment leads to a disturbance of the ecosystem, causing the migration of animals and the extinction of some plant species (Goldfinger 1). The encroachment also leads to the disturbance of the water systems leading to the drying of streams, rivers, and lakes. Economic development also leads to an increased population, especially in cities leading to more waste disposal and pollution of the environment due to poor waste management—the rise of industries and trade fuels economic development. The majority of industries use fossil fuels, which have adverse effects on the environment, from mining to the gases produced when they are burned. Oil wells leave deep shafts on the surface, leading to the destruction of the land’s aesthetics and future productivity. Oil transportation leads to oil spills on land and in water leading to the death of biodiversity. These industries also produce emissions that pose a threat to create climate change that is affecting the world. The waste produced in these industries ends in rivers and landfills that adversely affect the environment.
Canadas Role in Environmental Degradation and Protection
Canada has a role to play in the degradation as well as the protection of the environment. The trade between Canada and the United States has hurt the environment. Canada has treaties with companies in the United States that are actively involved in environmental degradation. Companies like general motors and other automobile companies have a large market in Canada and even factories that facilitate the environment’s degradation. Canada also exploits the country’s natural resources, such as oil, gas, and other minerals. Like the Athabasca’s and tar, oil exploration has been controversial due to the perceived negative effects on the environment (Laurel Sefton, 190). The freshwater lakes in Canada have consistently been the dumping site for industrial effluents leading to their destruction (MacDowell, 190). The development of cities around the great lakes has also harmed the water. The discharge of human waste and other industrial and domestic waste has made the waters inhabitable for fish.
Canada is feeling the effects of global warming, arguably more than in other countries. Canada is warming faster than other western and European countries (The Canadian Press, 1). However, like many other countries, Canada is trying to reduce its carbon footprint in the world. This reduction is proposed to be done in several ways: reducing carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses (The Canadian Press, 1). The government has also proposed removing subsidies on fossil fuels to ensure that there is an encouragement to use green energy. The government also promised to reduce and stop pollution caused by mining activities. Canada has adequate plans to become green by 2030, but it still has a long way to go, just like the rest of the world.
The Role of Science in Environmental Degradation
Science and scientist have a role in helping the world understand the effects of various environmental activities. Rachel Carson released a book, Silent Spring, which brought about environmental movements as it highlighted the adverse effects people’s actions are having on the environment (Laurel Sefton, 244). This move marked the importance of scientists in helping protect the environment. Rachel presented the effects on the environment of using chemicals like DDT extensively. The Science Advisory Committee accepted Rachel’s concerns on using pesticides mandated to investigate the claims made (Laurel Sefton, 245). The use of pesticides was hence regulated to reduce its use and its effects on the environment.
However, scientists have failed in their social responsibility to inform on the effects of chemicals, fossil fuels, and dumping of waste on the environment. This failure can be seen by the attack that fell on Rachel after releasing her book (Laurel Sefton, 245). There is sufficient evidence to show the effects these actions have, but scientists have not spoken out against specific actions. The large corporations are actively messing with the environment, but the scientists haven’t provided solutions or even spoken against it. Some scientists have helped some of these corporations pass tests on greenhouse emissions, facilitating the spread of environmental degradation.
Conclusion
Environmental degradation is a menace in society today, and this has been a result of systemic ignorance and neglect by society. With the use of fossil fuels in industries and the motor industry, the emissions from these industries have led to air and water pollution. The dumping of solid waste on landfills has resulted in a lot of pollution. The destruction of forests, water systems, and the environment has adverse effects on the ecological balance and life at large. Industry practices like planned obsolescence have resulted in producing products that don’t last and resulting in a lot of solid waste. This drive to seek profit at the expense of the environment shows the level of disregard society has for the environment. Neoliberal Globalization has changed the agricultural sector encouraging the use of pesticides and other chemicals. These chemicals have adverse effects on the environment, but society can’t change because large corporations drive these products. Scientists have a role in helping stop environmental degradation around the world though they have failed so far in this mandate. Society itself has a role in refusing other practices that harm the environment and protect the environment for its own sake and survival.
Works Cited
Carson, Rachel. Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002.
Girdner, Eddie J., and Kalim Siddiqui. “Neoliberal globalization, poverty creation and environmental degradation in developing countries.” International Journal of Environment and Development 5.1 (2008): 1-27.
Goldfinger, Daina. Coronavirus: How Environmental Destruction Influences the Emergence of Pandemics. 4 Apr. 2020, globalnews.ca/news/6773423/coronavirus-environmental-destruction-climate-change-pandemics/.
MacDowell, Laurel Sefton. “An environmental history of Canada.” (2013).
Pechlaner, Gabriela, and Gerardo Otero. “The third food regime: neoliberal globalism and agricultural biotechnology in North America.” Sociologia ruralis 48.4 (2008): 351-371.
Proske, Marina, et al. “Obsolescence of electronics-the example of smartphones.” 2016 Electronics Goes Green 2016+(EGG). IEEE, 2016.
Steinberg, Ted. Down to earth: nature’s role in American history. Oxford University Press, 2002.
Stern, David I., Michael S. Common, and Edward B. Barbier. “Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development.” World Development 24.7 (1996): 1151-1160.
The Canadian Press. “Canada’s Failure to Fight Climate Change ‘Disturbing,’ Environment Watchdog Says | CBC News.” CBC news, CBC/Radio Canada, 2 Apr. 2019, www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-commissioner-julie-gelfand-disturbing-climate-change-1.5081027.