Calvin Parker

Op-Ed
Going Green by Seeking Green: How Capitalism Can Drive Environmental Action
Ureka! Capitalism = environmental protection. Green = Green. Turns out money isn’t so
bad after all as it isn’t the root of all evil but the solution to all environmental problems and the
most effective method to save the world! Although strange, the most viable solution to solving
the problem may derive from the biggest detractor of the issue in the first place. This may
prove to be true as current nationwide and worldwide protests, demonstrations, and strikes on
climate issues continue to struggle to seek change as dozens of people have been arrested in
countries such as London and Amsterdam.
Despite opposing beliefs, Climate Change and Global Warming continue to be evidenced
by events like this past September 2019 breaking the record for the hottest September ever
recorded and this hurricane season so far producing a record 6 hurricanes simultaneously
occurring in either the Atlantic or Pacific.
A capitalistic mindset programmed for maximizing profit was historically the greatest
opposition to environmental protection concerns. The mass environmental deregulation (on
Federal level) that occurred in the United States in the 1980s and that is seeming to resurface
in today’s politics with this current administration justifying concerns such as not wanting to
limit the coal and oil industry, not wanting to stop the livelihoods of farmers and
agriculturalists. Although this may seem reasonable, we may be missing out on a huge market
when considering this limited scope. And a truly ethical capitalist doesn’t miss out on a dime.
Using the same capitalistic mindset that drives us in our industrial, business, and trade
ventures, for environmental issues can lead us to profits never generated before. This partly
comes from more environmentally cautious, sustainable, and efficient systems that can save
money and reduce unnecessary costs. To fully “capitalize” and generate all the wealth possible,
we must consider the financial gain of minimizing environmental impacts. The old mindset of
“greed is good” can be updated to modern concerns and changed to “greed is green.”
Recent research projects that over the next few decades, the effort to reduce climate
change is expected to cost much less than the damage that would otherwise ensue upon
humans, infrastructure, and ecosystems. So, if reducing climate change can protect our health,
the health of our environment, and make and save us a ton of money in the meantime, I cannot
see how anyone could oppose being all-in on this initiative. Since it costs more to simply do
nothing when it comes to climate change, we might as well work to reduce it to receive this
financial pay-back and more. Because, if we are true capitalists than we don’t pass up ways to
make more money, right? And I think we’d want to save our lives and the world to by turning
off the lights and faucet, planting trees, recycling, using fluorescent lightbulbs, blah-blah-blah
SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!
Calvin Parker

The overwhelming evidence of the economic benefits of reducing climate change are
enough to conclude that producing a strong economy requires a maintenance of a healthy
environment as fact. The economic risks associated with the environmental degradation is a
category we cannot overlook. I wonder if farmers opposed to climate action in Missouri and
Illinois were aware that rising temperatures are projected to cause a 70 percent decline in
annual crop yields by the century’s end. We could lose billions of dollars in property in coastal
states such as Florida and California due to sea level rise that could submerge these states.
Worldwide, the estimated value of ecosystem services is $33 trillion annually and we’d hate to
lose all that free value in services that nature provides if you just care for it. Continuing at our
current rate of air pollutant discharge and not making the switch to clean energy and limiting
industrial emissions will continue to lead to millions dying or living with degraded health. And if
we’re such cold-hearted capitalists that we can turn a blind eye to a couple million people (in a
world of BILLIONS) dying every year, this same air pollution can lead to a loss of 4 percent GDP
every year!
It’s a fact that an energy efficient economy that reduces greenhouse-gas emissions is a
more productive economy. Therefore, the industries of renewable/clean energy are and will
continue to be major drivers that define economic growth going forward. Excuses of people not
wanting to switch to electric vehicles and use solar panels because of affordability will continue
to fadeaway as this technology has been dropping in cost over the last 5-10 years and will
continue to drop over the next 20 years to rival their coal and gasoline combustion engine
counterparts in price. Wealth will continue to be generated globally as car companies that
embrace the shift to electric vehicles will see great profits. Washington D.C. and 33 other states
reported expanding their economies when reducing their energy-related carbon emissions from
2000 to 2014. Also, the U.S. reported an increase of GDP by 30 percent while reducing it’s
emissions by 10 percent from 2000 to 2015. Lastly, the renewable energy industry has great
potential for job growth. In the U.S. there are already over 450,000 jobs in Wind and Solar
energy combined an estimated 2.2 million for energy efficiency compared to 160,000 workers
in Coal. Continued investment in sustainable infrastructure is projected to produce about
460,000 more jobs by 2030 (oil-and gas related jobs could decline by 130,000). Since this
transition is inevitable, government should gradually manage it, abstain from trying to sustain a
dying and costly fossil fuel industry, an diversify economies to fit different locations during the
change.
This may have been the only complete solution all along. We’ve tried Earth Day, the
Lorax, Bill Nye, and recycling achieving minimal to moderate success. However, “This is
America”, where the mighty dollar is, was, and will always be the ultimate power. So, to
continue to become more powerful, why not “go green” for more green?
Calvin Parker

Part 2 Email: Email to the Guardian

From: cjparker98@comcast.net
To: guardian.letters@theguardian.com, alan.evans@theguardian.com
Subject: Calvin Parker, Request to Have an Environmental Article Posted

Email Content:
Dear Guardian,
My name is Calvin Parker and I am student at the University of Maryland studying Civil
Environmental Engineering. Attached to this email is an Op-Ed article that I would like published
on your platform about why the accumulation of financial capital/wealth should propel us to
make improvements to the environment and reduce the current alarming rate change because
of their nature of being related. I believe that this would be great for your publication because
it will challenge the misconception that we have to choose between the economy and the
environment and get people on board to participate more strongly in environmental protection
because of its great potential in financial benefit. Please let me know if there is anything else
that I must do to have my article published. Thanks in advance for your time.

Sincerely,
Calvin Parker
University of Maryland
Class of 2020
Calvin Parker

Part 3: Reflection of Writing Experience

This assignment proved to be a very challenging largely since coming up with an

interesting, innovative, and new mindset for an environmental topic (or really any topic) was

quite the task. Once I figured out what my topic would be, I did not think I would have too

much trouble moving through the piece and getting it done. However, brainstorming for this

assignment proved to be a confusing, mind-blanking, and rigorous experience. After being

presented with the assignment, I immediately began thinking of environmental concerns I could

address. However, I could not come up with an interesting point of view on any of them. This is

the part that stumped me for a while as I spent days searching for current environmental news

while simultaneously thinking of unconventional viewpoints to express these topics. Finally, I

decided to pick the overall blanketing environmental issue of climate change because I had an

idea that we can push for climate action by using financial wealth or the ideology of capitalism

as a motivator, end means, or ultimate goal. I thought this was an interesting point of view

because environmental concerns have long been contrasted with economics or environmental

protection was thought to come at the sacrifice of wealth accumulation. However, I wanted to

update this obsolete and inaccurate narrative to today’s condition where these two factors do

coincide and are even dependent on each other. This is why I addressed complaints that

industries had with environmental regulations and responded by new devices and systems that

can appease those industrial concerns that may have held more weight decades ago but aren’t

as relevant today. I adjusted old cliché from the 1987 film, Wall Street, to a more fitting
Calvin Parker

environmental one for today. I made my stance quickly in the first couple sentences by using

short sentences and word-based equations to swiftly and simply state my finding.