26 May, Sunday
15° C

The library of essays of Proakatemia

If You are recycling, you are destroying the planet

Kirjoittanut: Omar Puebla Roldan - tiimistä FLIP Solutions.

Esseen tyyppi: Yksilöessee / 2 esseepistettä.
Esseen arvioitu lukuaika on 5 minuuttia.

According to The Guardian, just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions. Between them, the 90 companies on the list of top emitters produced 63% of the cumulative global emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane between 1751 to 2010, amounting to about 914 gigatonne C02 emissions, according to the research. All but seven of the 90 were energy companies producing oil, gas, and coal. 

The list of 90 companies included 50 investor-owned firms- mainly oil companies with widely recognized names such a Chevron, Exxon, Bp, and Royal Dutch Shell and coal producers as British Coal Corp, Peabody Energy, and BHP Billiton. 

They are thousands of oil, gas, and coal producers in the world, half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years, well past the date when government and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the running of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change. Many of the same companies are also sitting on substantial fossil fuel reserves.


If we know that 90 industries produce 2/3 of the pollution in the world, and if we add the millions of industries worldwide, and the all the companies then make pollution and toxic product, plus the all bad public policy, e.g., excessive use of pesticides, wrong vehicle emissions practices, and bad exploitation of natural resources management.


We can say that approximately 90 % of the pollution comes from the public sector and private sector, which means from the industry and the government’s decision, 

the other 10% comes from consumer behavior. According to one study in Nasa, in 12 years, we can hit the point-of-noreturn for global warming. (according to with Washington post is seven years, link below)


Nowadays, we are facing a problem with recycling if we know that 2/3 of the pollution is coming from the private sector and bad public policy from the governments, and if we are super positive and we can encourage all humanity to recycle and change the customer behavior that means: let’s don’t use plastic or use less plastic, and everyone eat only vegetarian, and everyone gives up meat, and use biodegradable products, and using papers straws, and reducing immigration, using less water when we shower, buying second-hand clothes and second-hand products. The problem is, if we are doing all those things, we believe we are doing something good for the planet. when we know already that any kind of effort we are doing right now has no impact. 


The problem is not the individual behavior. The problem is in the private sector and public policy,

For years the idea of recycling came to personal or like a style of life. So many big Companies blain to the customer’s behavior is the cause of so much pollution. (If you used less plastic, there would be less pollution). So if we know it is nothing or is very little, we can save the planet. So we continue recycling, actually what we are doing is perpetuating things as it is right now, prolonging the existence of the problem. 


Because of that false idea of recycling, you will make a global impact. Knowing is a lie. You just help the problem continue, and you make the other 99% of the change have to happen, not happen.

Making people believe they should change their customer behavior if I use less plastic and recycling. I’m already doing my part to save the planet, and that is enough. This gives the place to think from a “bigger moral state” and say that the problem is with the rest of the irresponsible people. 

Because I’m recycling, I’m buying my shoes made of bamboo, I don’t use a plastic straw, I don’t use plastic bags, I do my part to save the planet. But, unfortunately, this kind of thinking makes them believe the world is like this because of them. 


Perhaps I need to clarify something on this point. I’m not against recycling or the idea of saving the planet and global warming. However, I believe everyone worldwide needs to be conscious about it and demand better policies to curb pollution and better controls for private companies.


Is recycling helping the planet?

I want t to believe yes recycling is helping the planet but is another side. I see the number front the industrial pollution and makes think is very sad is very little we can do. Still, of course, we can learn more about a better way of recycling and better-creating business. Perhaps we should learn more about circular economies. 


Is recycling the new placebo?

I think it is and is sad to admit, from my perspective, if we are recycling is because we want to find some kind of peace with ourselves. We want to believe the lie we are saving the planet when we know that you don’t make any global impact. As consumers, we do pollution when we approach products, and we feel sad because we see all that pollution we do. But, the moment we buy those paper straws and those biodegradable bags, we think we have made some impact and are responsible for the planet. 

Recycling became our placebo to feel good and not feel guilty. 

Perhaps we need to feel guilty, but responsible guilty, and learn and teach a new generation the responsibility the change new to be done in the public sector and in the private sector so maybe if we stop the idea to save the planet less personal or individual because this ideology became the opium of the masses (Carl Mars)


Some studies carried out in developed countries have shown that people are more interested in climate change when they have better economic incomes and where all the basic needs are covered.

Scandinavia is one of the sectors that is acting fast and progressive to the problems of climate change. 

Across the Nordic region, there is a tradition of looking after the environment. One striking manifestation of this is a lack of litter and relatively low pollution levels – although these problems indeed do exist in larger urban areas. By contrast, rural Nordic landscapes can appear pristine by European standards. In remote pockets, it almost appears as if no one has ever inhabited the landscape.

Of course, there are many reasons for this. Most Nordic countries have fairly small populations relative to their land area, Denmark being a notable exception. Low population density means less strain on the land and less competition for resources. It also helps that the geography of certain parts of the region makes land unsuitable for agriculture. The further north you go, the poorer the soil and the harsher the climatic conditions.


Another significant factor is most of the Nordic is good social security. In countries like Finland, the purpose of social security is to provide people with sufficient livelihood in different situations in life. You may need financial support, for example, if you fall ill or have a child. You may be entitled to support if you work or live permanently in Finland. Kela manages social security services and benefits, such as the national pension, child benefit, basic unemployment security, sickness and parenthood allowance, income support, and rehabilitation. Kela also provides health care benefits paid for private health care.


This reminds me the Maslow’s hierarchy pyramid. The lowest levels of the pyramid are made up of the most basic needs, while the most complex needs are at the top of the pyramid.

Needs at the bottom of the pyramid are basic physical requirements, including food, water, sleep, and warmth. Once these lower-level needs have been met, people can move on to the next level of needs for safety and security.


As people progress up the pyramid, needs become increasingly psychological and social. Soon, the need for love, friendship, and intimacy becomes important.

Further up the pyramid, the need for personal esteem and feelings of accomplishment take priority. Like Carl Rogers, Maslow emphasized the importance of self-actualization, which is a process of growing and developing as a person to achieve individual potential.


We can not demand the rest of the world be aware of the responsibility for climate change. Countries with extreme poverty and child malnutrition remain important contributor to child mortality. Approximately 45% of child deaths globally may be caused by under-nutrition, which leaves children susceptible to infectious disease. 


We can not demand to recycle or buy eco-friendly products to people who have 4€ every day for a living and try to teach them the importance of climate change when the basic need are not fulfilled. 

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions



How long until it’s too late to save Earth from climate disaster? This clock is counting down.


Jordan Peterson Educates Climate Activist … – youtube.com
v=1d9tOyRvPgINEW Second Channel, The Conservative Clip Centre: https:/…



United Nations Millennium Development Goals


Post a Comment