Friday, November 17, 2023

Enough is Enough

 


A major argument Robinson makes throughout the entire book is that greed and lack of satisfaction are some of the serious reasons for climate change.  According to Robinson, “[t]here was scientifically supported evidence to show that if the Earth’s available resources were divided up equally among all eight billion humans, everyone would be fine” (Robinson, 57). An example of this is the 2,000 Watt Society in Switzerland. They all live comfortably and play a role in reducing climate change. Robinson goes on to say that “there is enough for all. So there should be no more people living in poverty. And there should be no more billionaires” (Robinson, 58). I agree with this statement because the richest people in the world have an amount of money that is unnecessary and unjustifiable. The book says, “[t]he three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than all the people in the forty-eight poorest countries added together” (Robinson, 74). There is no reason for this to happen and the world would be better if resources were more evenly distributed. 


However, the CEOs and billionaires of the world are not willing to change their ways of life and keep on seeking more money which often leads to more pollution and climate disruption.  Even though they see the consequences of their actions, the rich and powerful are too far removed from society to care and they believe that those consequences will never happen to them. Because of human nature to pursue self-interest, these actions will not change unless rules are put in place to stop them.  One rule I think would work well to improve equality is setting a legally mandated maximum wage ratio like the one used by the US Navy. The current minimum wage does nothing to help equality, if anything because of how low it is, it harms those working jobs that pay minimum wage while benefiting the higher-ups of such companies. Having a maximum wage ratio of one to ten will drastically increase equality, “[w]ith the lowest level set high enough for life adequacy or decency or however you want to call it” (Robinson, 383). This is critical for it to be successful. This will come with much controversy and may be difficult to implement, but if passed with minimal ways to avoid the ratio it will prove to be highly prosperous. The book models such a world by saying, [c]apping individual income and wealth had flattened the top of the scale. Of course, many rich people had attempted to abscond to a safe haven with their riches, but currency controls, and the fact that all money was now blockchained and tracked, meant that all the old havens and shelters were being rooted out and eliminated” (Robinson, 478).  When this happens, all members of society will face similar problems and maybe then, climate change will be seen by all as a serious issue.


1 comment:

  1. I agree with the statement "There is enough for all" (Robinson, 58). As well, however, I don't believe equality by setting a legally mandated maximum wage would be the main solution to the climate change issue. Though true that CEOs and billionaires are unwilling to alter their lifestyle or the way their company runs to gain more wealth by cutting corners that ultimately results in more CO2 emissions and pollution hence climate change. I think It would be more beneficial if people were more educated and if mindsets were changed through strict regulations being put in place in the first place, to begin with, to prevent these CEOs from allowing their company to harm and accelerate climate change or pollution. Money is part of the problem indeed however if people become more willing to actively begin adopting changes that would encourage the prevention of climate change that would be more impactful. A way this could be down is by regulation of course however regulations that don't force a person to completely change their life immediately. Start slow and provide options on what should and how it could be done. If people were educated and knew of the harm of climate change they would be more open to change. Having to change one's way of living so abruptly is difficult that's why if slowing acclimated, people are more willing and won't think much of it. Climate change shouldn't be used as a fear factor it's something that people control. At the beginning of the book the heatwaves in India killed countless people if people understood they were promoting weather change like that they would be more understanding and want to change. I also want to point out that during the heatwaves when India came up with the plan to help its country by using a technology that would admit more greenhouse gasses the other countries were against it even though it would save the lives of Indian citizens. I find this to be very odd, yes it would cause the emission of more CO2 but it would save lives. Rules and regulations are good but should still be limited to a certain extent. Especially in this case. "We are breaking the Agreement,' Chandra said flatly. "But no one knows what the effects will be!" "They will be like Pinatubo, or hopefully double that. Which is what we need. "You can't be sure that there won't be other effects"Mary!" Chandra exclaimed. "Stop it right now. I know what you are going to say even before you say it. Here's what we are sure of in India: even know how many died, millions of people have just died. We'11 never there are too many to count. It could be twenty million people. Do you understand what that means?" (Robinson, 20). Showing the public the cause of this incident being linked to climate change while providing information on how it could be combated without just forceful government regulation would encourage and help people be more willing to do their part in taking action against climate change.

    ReplyDelete