Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Environmental changes and conflicts essay
Interest groups and public policy
Environmental changes and conflicts essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Environmental changes and conflicts essay
The conflict perspective is very apparent in modern day issues affecting the environment. Environmental groups, both government and non-government based like The Sierra Club and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) are often at odds with industries with conflicting goals such as logging and oil industries. The industries want their right to manufacture products from natural resources, while environmental groups want to protect and preserve these limited natural resources. For example, conservationist groups lobby to industries in the energy field and people in general to reduce and conserve their use of natural resources and to develop alternate sources for this energy. On the other hand, preservationists strive to preserve these resources as much as possible. Various other environmental groups have specific purposes and goals such as eliminating air pollution from automobiles and stopping the dumping of chemicals into ocean waters. The general goal of all of these groups is to preserve and ensure the existence of all living beings on earth. While this may sound simple or easy, it is far from it. When big businesses like oil companies have billions of dollars and tremendous influences on government, small time environmental groups only get secondary attention.
The majority of these groups have been started in very recent history and continue in growing force. This is mainly due to growing awareness, as well as growing concern for environmental issues. Despite this, industries have also grown and so has their consumption and exploitation of mother nature. Pollution and waste resulting from the depletion and usage of many natural resources and fossil fuels has plagued the earth recently. Two examples are the growing hole in the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect, which will continue to haunt us in the future. Along with this destruction comes the elimination of various species of animals and plants alike. The dollar sign is the biggest obstacle in combating this and although awareness and protection of Earth’s resources has steadily grown, this conflict is still being won by big business.
Along with the multitude of private groups trying to win this conflict, the government is also making attempts to do so as well. This fight to preserve and protect mother nature through legislation and activism is being waged by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Through politics and lobbying by these groups, the government has passed many new laws, rules and regulations to aid in the cause of protecting our environment.
Walmart can be studied using structure functional theory and social conflict theories. Social functional theory is the relationships among parts of society and how these parts are functional(have beneficial consequences) or dysfunctional (have negative consequences. Most Americans today love to shop at Walmart because they continue to give consumers the best prices on over 120,000 products and are one stop shopping.
The EPA operates from a number of laws and regulations designed to function as its foundation for protecting the environment and the health of the public. Congress allows the EPA to write regulations in order to support the ideas for implementing these regulations. For that reason they are known as a regulatory agency. These regulations fall under two categories: Laws and Executive Orders (EOs) that influence environmental protection and Laws and EOs that Influence the Regulatory Process.
Did you know that in 2014, shoplifting and worker’s theft cost the retail industry a loss of thirty-two billion dollars (Wahba, 2015)? According Wahba “a common misperception about shoplifting is that retailers can ‘afford’ the loss of a candy bar or a pair of jeans” (2015). This type of reasoning certainly does make more sense when explained through the context of a criminological theory. For example according to the Rational Choice theory individuals weigh the costs and benefits associated with a criminal and or deviant act and then make a conscious choice. Other criminological theories explain criminal and deviant behavior using a biological, psychological, social, conflict, or multifactor component. Taking that into consideration in this
In 1989, seventy five percent of Americans identified themselves as environmentalists, and the number has continued to grow since then (Walls 1). Environmentalism is now the most popular social movement in the United States, with over five million American families donating regularly to environmental organizations (Walls 1). Environmentalists today focus on what kind of world they hope to see in the future, and largely deal with limiting pollution and changing consumption rates (Kent 1 and 9). Modern environmentalists also have much different issues than those Carson’s America faced. With climate change becoming more threatening each year, protection of the natural world is needed more than ever. Pollution has caused the warmest decade in history, the deterioration of the ozone layer, and species extinction in extreme numbers (Hunter 2). It not only threatens nature, but also human populations, who already suffer from lack of clean water and poisoning from toxic chemicals (Hunter 16). Unlike environmental actions in the 1960’s, which were mostly focused on protection, a massive increase in pollution has caused efforts to be focused on environmental restoration (Hunter 16). Like in the time of Silent Spring, environmentalists are not only concerned with one country. Protecting the environment remains a global issue, and every nation is threatened by the
“Earth First! is a verb, not a noun.” (Earth First! Journal.org/Direct Action). Founded in 1979, the Earth First! movement began in response to the increasingly corporate environmental community. The founders believed environmental activists were selling out rather than working to protect the environment. Frustrated by the direction of the environmental movement, they decided it was time to take aggressive action to defend Mother Earth. Their slogan became “No Compromise in the Defense of Mother Earth!” Supporters are composed of small groups that take it upon themselves to become familiar with the ecology of the area and the most immediate and serious threats to it by using litigation, education and civil disobedience (Earth First! Journal.org/About Earth First!). There is a broad diversity of groups ranging from forest defenders, fracking, wetlands activism, animal rights and agricultural activism but all agree on the need to take action. With views tied to deep ecology, supporters believe that all living organisms are valuable and that all forms of life are vitally connected. The life of the earth comes first and these beliefs are put into action by drawing public attention to the crises facing the natural world and succeeding in cases where other environmental groups have given up. Earth Firsters also believe the current technological system is unethical because it permits humans to prosper while other species become extinct. To save all species, humans must give up their technological luxuries ("If a Tree Falls in the Forest, They Hear It". New York Times News Archives, 04 November 1990. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/04/magazine/if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-they-hear-it.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm). New ideas, strategies an...
The United States has earned the reputation of a rebellious country since its birth in the revolution against Britain. Over the course of history, Americans have repeatedly confronted oppression, both foreign and national, through various wars and rights movements. Unfortunately, when it comes to environmental issues the average American has grown increasingly complacent. With a renewed urgency, government is working to combat global warming, but lacks the necessary social backing. This social support could be supplied through a new environmental movement that differs from past efforts. Throughout American history there have been three categories of environmental movements: preservation, conservation, and modern reform, all of which have failed to bring a ubiquitous social change and substantial impact on the overall environmental health.
Jack London’s “To Build a Fire” and John Updike’s “A&P” were very different, but interesting stories. Both authors chose a different approach to their chosen tone. Updike wrote in a more laid back and entertaining way, while London, on the other hand, chose to write in a more formal and serious way. The authors also developed much different characters. London’s main character was much older and rugged than the complicated teenage girls and grocery clerk that Updike chose to focus his story around. The most significant difference, however, is the choice of conflict. Updike’s conflict was a simple one focusing on man versus man, but London’s story had many conflicts that dealt with much more serious issues like, for example, life and death.
Environmentalists are some of the most argumentative and relentless people around. They view compromise in any form as a step backward. When the environment is compromised for anything, they say, we all lose. Their opinion isn't unfounded. We all are a part of a global ecosystem, and whether we like it or not all of us are affected by what happens to it. Compromise means that the environment lost ground to something else, like oil companies or housing developers, which get profits at the expense of everyone else. When it comes to OHVs on public land, many major environmental groups like the Sierra Club are pushing hard for severe restrictions and even bans in some places.
Although environmentalism and conservationism both promoted responsible human management of nature, the movements vary in their core ideologies. Specifically, conservation has its roots in the economic value of nature whereas environmentalism seeks to protect the environment from humans. Conservation arose in the early 20th century amidst the Progressive Era and the Second Industrial Revolution and although it encouraged the sustainable use of resources, many of its efforts and practices were actually implemented for human benefit. Conservationists called for the control of certain wildlife for recreational and economic uses such as hunting and food and were not concerned with the ecological consequences of their efforts. Gaining popularity in the 1960s, environmentalism pushed for ecological sensibility and protection of the environment rather than its exploitation for economic advantage. Environmentalism sought the governmental regulation of wildlife in the late 1960s and 1970s to limit human manipulation of nature. Environmentalism also led to the growth of environmental protection groups which advocated for a symbiotic relationship between humans and the environment. Even though environmentalism and conservationism bot...
Whenever we fight for clean drinking water, or clean air, or a safe workplace, we are likely to find a corporation on the other side of the issue. The goal of a corporation is, first, to survive, and, second, to return a profit to its shareholders, not to mention for money and if the air has to be fouled to accomplish these goals, then the air will be fouled. Meaning, the corporations will do anything to keep these goals even if it means that they have to cause pollution or some issues. Pollution is one of the problems by the corporations that affect us. The Business Council for Sustainable Development thinks of this as ?gToday, for instance, the earth's atmosphere is providing the valuable service of acting as a dump for pollutants; those enjoying this service rarely pay a reasonable price for it,". This is an example of corporations ?gexternalizing?h their costs. By using the air as a free dump, corporations are able to get away with paying the costs for waste disposal to the people while they prof...
In addition to the individuals that use their wealth and influence to attempt to save the environment, there are also many individuals and organizations on the other side of the issue. These individuals and organizations are not necessarily anti-environment rather they are those who have a large stake in industries like manufacturing and fossil fuel energy or those who feel that the high initial cost of changing existing infrastructure and researching new technologies are not worth the eventual gains for the environment.
Political ecology began in the 1960s as a response to the neglect of the environment and political externalities from which it is spawned. Political ecology is the analysis of social forms and humans organizations that interact with the environment, the phenomena in and affecting the developing world. Political ecology also works to provide critiques and alternatives for negative reactions in the environment. This line of work draws from all sorts of fields, such as geography, forestry, environmental sociology, and environmental history in a complex relationship between politics, nature, and economics. It is a multi-sided field where power strategies are conceived to remove the unsustainable modern rationality and instead mobilize social actions in the globalized world for a sustainable future. The field is focused in political ethics to refresh sustainability, and the core questions of the relationships between society and ecology, and the large impacts of globalization of humanized nature.
Besides the interest by the military, there is evidence to suggest that private enterprise is also interested in manipulating our eco-system for a broad range of reasons.
Since the beginning of all recorded history human beings have been dependent upon mother Earth to supply us with our needs. We have cultivated the earth for crop production as well as domesticated animals to better suit our needs; for labor and even for food itself. Sustainability was never in question and land, crops, and animals were always in plenty if taken into consideration. A simpler life where survival through food, shelter, water, and reproduction were all that mattered. However, through time things have changed. From hunter and gatherer sects to farming communities; from small towns to booming civilizations; maybe most importantly has been the change of ideology. We as a society have changed from a simple nature of self sustenance into a society of greed. Greed that is represented in the forms of money, power, land, and politics. The effects of this greed are devastating to the environment. Since sustainability doesn’t necessarily formulate into the ideology of those who are greedy it has been pushed to the side. This has resulted in the Earth’s resources to be exploited, stolen, and in some cases even have led to bloodshed; these things only leading to people being able to line their pockets more deeply. One main culprit of these “crimes” is the oil industry.
In order of being able to analyze the sources of conflicts regarding the clothing manufacturer, I will present the Conflict Process Model according to McShane and Von Glinow. Therefore, I will first define what conflicts are, and second present the different sources of conflicts and carve out which conflicts are involved regarding to the given case. The third step is to explain two different strategies to minimize these conflicts in future. Finally, I will provide a recommendation and conclusion.