KAMALPREET KAUR

10131313

GEOG 101K

FINAL EXAM

1. What is the relation between climate change and capitalism according to George

Monbiot?

Climate change: Basically, a climate change is the scientific term for the rise in greenhouse

gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere which results in the increase in the

global temperature and leading to a range of disasters consequences likewise crop failures, sea

level rise and many more (week 12, p.3).

Capitalism: Capitalism means to generate a commodity exchange in order to earn profit and

create competition between producers (class notes).

Relation between climate change and capitalism according to George Monbiot:

Firstly, Monbiot said that capitalism has three intrinsic features that is growth, assumption and

private luxury and it is all related to climate change. According to him, without growth

capitalism seems to be failing. He said, “the rising growth in consumption is the aggregate

impact of profit seeking activities. In other words, it is the inevitable result of capitalism as

successfully practiced and this needs to a slight problem that perpetual growth which is what

capitalism seeks on a finite planet leads to inexorably environmental disaster”. Secondly, is the

assumption. He added that the more money we have in the bank account equates to the right to

own as much as natural wealth such as land, gold as much as we want to eat meat or fish as much
as burn carbon we like if we have got the money for that. But it will lead to many environmental

problems such as depletion of resources, unequal distribution of resources and many more.

According to him, the features of capitalism turn it into a gun pointed at the living world. We

cannot sustain a habitable climate and sustain capitalism, instead we need a system based on a

different principle of private suffering and public luxury. In the end he highlights that it is easier

to imagine the end of the world than it is imagine to the end of capitalism.

2. Do you think this could be a considered example of environmental racism?

Environmental racism: Environmental racism is when this discrimination is due to an

environmental factor: it could be access to clean drinking water, breathable air, a clean

environment, etc. (week 8. P.3).

Yes, this video would be a great example of environmental racism because every people in this

world have a right to live in a clean environment but in this video, individuals live in the toxic

air. This all happens in Port Arthur, Texas where environmentalist Hilton Kelley lives. He said

that when he came back from to home from the military in 1984, he saw people with cancer and

respiratory problems. People had invited him for environmental justice as plants were dumping

into the air which impacts the air quality and killing the US citizens as it contains Sulphur

dioxide. There is a largest oil refinery in the Northern Hemisphere, whatever is processed in this

factory is to be sent overseas not for benefits the local citizens whereas all the impurities are

going into the air of these people live in this town. That is why, in the end Kelley said, “Texas is

considered the sacrifice zone”.

3. Is overpopulation a myth, or it is a real problem?

Overpopulation: Increase in the number of individuals that resources would not be able to

support is known as overpopulation (week 11, p.11).

No, I don’t think that overpopulation is a real problem. Instead of it is the problem of

consumption. If we look at the levels of consumption among different contexts such as globally,

locally they are highly unequal. For example, India has a most populated country then it means

there is a lot of energy and resources consumption in this country by individuals. But this is not

true. As one study shows that the average American consumes 16 times higher resources than an

average Indian. Moreover, the emission of carbon dioxide is also different. According to the

report of 2018, an Indian family of 4 had a carbon footprint of less than 8 tons, whereas in the

American family in the same year, came in at almost 70 which was shocking. So, I think we

should be looking at who is consuming and how much instead of simply counting the number of

people. However, no one can really deny that human population has an impact on the

environment, but right now richest nations emit so much carbon that even adding three or more

four billion people in the global south would not be significantly impact the rate of climate

change. I think this all happens because in the developed nations there is a lot of advancement in

technologies as compared to developing nations. Thus, “it is the time to change the narrative

away from easy to blame visual problem of population to the more hidden and dangerous

concerns of waste and overconsumption” (week 11, p.12).