Our discussion on realism in class today lends itself to the proposed question on climate strikes and their effectiveness. One of the topics brought up in our discussion questioned the continual trade of oil or natural resources between China and the US despite their strained relations. I immediately thought about the minute details that could explain this confusing set of policies and how it could apply to discussions surrounding climate change. While US and China relations are strained, private corporations within these countries are not bound by the same rules as those of the state. CEOs are not motivated by patriotism, but by selling to the highest bidder. Nationality does not always equal loyalty, especially when seen in the context of the Petroleum Paradox. While British and French companies owned 70% of the Romanian oil production market, Germany was still able to buy large amounts of oil to reduce their petroleum deficit. Parallel to this idea, CEOs are not bound by a state authority or by international treaties to protect the environment. Like those previously mentioned, they are not motivated by nationalism or a love for the planet, but by making the highest profit. Realists would understand that companies who contribute to industrial waste and pollution are too preoccupied with the potential wealth at their hands to implement any sustainable practices in production and waste management. Along with this, many corporate leaders are well above the age of impact and will face little to no effects of climate change. If they will not be hurt, why should they shell out their fortune to help billions of strangers? Realism recognizes the unlikely probability that CEOs will ever act out of the kindness of their heart and choose the morally correct option.
Regulations often come with high fees and overhauling much of the production system, which major companies can not afford, leading to further pollution. Countries like China, in particular face significant challenges to environmental growth as orders from high officials are rarely if ever implemented on a regional level. Developing countries with weakened centralized governments often regress in terms of sustainability as corporations can bribe local officials. Deep-seated corruption and a lack of trust in the fair application of environmental law are significant obstacles that stand in the way of environmentalism.
When discussing how realists would react to the speech Greta Thunberg gave at the UN and the climate strikes of the past weekend, I believe they would see it as ineffective and useless. Realism itself is inherently pessimistic as it requires the acceptance of the circumstances at hand and being able to deal with it accordingly. As we have seen in the past year alone, strikes have done little to force any effective change within the US on matters of sexual assault, gun violence, racism, etc. Radical change has been absent in our current political discussions, so why would it change now? I seriously want to re-state the fact that most of the time I am an extreme optimist, but when it comes to climate change, we’re screwed. Major overhauls in the industry have yet to been made, and honestly, the time for these actions is long past. Even if we had time to scrape together a plan that could potentially save us, our government is too consumed by chaos to be able to focus on this issue alone. Divisions within the US’s political sphere have shut down any legislative attempts to reduce our carbon footprint. Those who see world affairs from a realist perspective would see Greta Thunberg’s speech at the United Nations as a desperate appeal that will lead nowhere. Even if the US government could come together to form a comprehensive plan to combat climate change, there would still need to be unilateral support from hundreds of other countries. Realism reflects the constant state of conflict that exists within world politics, where states act purely out of self-preservation rather than to abide by ethical norms. This idea of realism would suggest that this unanimous support is nearly impossible to accomplish as every country has objectives that might contradict another’s.
I truly enjoyed reading your post. I was able to understand your points and the way you tied in the reading was a good use of the resources available to us. I am specifically going to focus on your last paragraph. I completely agree that realists would view these demonstrations as useless and futile. Nothing will change because of them since there is no strength to back the little power these activists have gained. However, I disagree with your statement that realists are pessimistic. I believe they are just looking at the world with logic and only logic. It is a harsh viewpoint. I think your slight realist view on what is to come as far as the issue of climate change is extremely valid, but do you believe everyone should be doing their part? I mean "their part" in a sense that everyone should be doing little things to help avert the crisis since we cannot control the larger forces at play.
ReplyDelete