ActivistSlot Machine

Air pollution is a serious issue that affects the health of humans, animals, and plants, as well as damaging buildings. Pollutants in the air can take many forms, including gases, solid particles, or liquid droplets.

Pollution enters the Earth's atmosphere in a number of different ways. The majority of air pollution is created by people, in the form of emissions from factories, cars, planes, or aerosol cans. Second-hand cigarette smoke is also considered to be a form of air pollution. These man-made sources of pollution are referred to as anthropogenic sources. It has been observed that large cities in poor and Global South countries tend to have more air pollution than cities in Global North countries.

The effects of air pollution on human health are numerous and varied. In the short term, exposure can result in temporary illnesses such as pneumonia or bronchitis. However, in the long term, it can lead to more serious conditions, including heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases such as emphysema.

Global warming is an environmental phenomenon caused by natural and anthropogenic air pollution. There is no doubt that carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.

Source: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/air-pollution/

A sacrifice zone is usually an area with lots of pollution and environmental problems caused by nearby industrial facilities that are toxic or polluting. These areas are known as ‘sacrifice zones’ because the wellbeing of people living there is being put at risk for the benefit of others.

It's no surprise that people who live with high levels of pollution often end up with worse health outcomes and long-term ailments. This is particularly the case with children, with black children being especially vulnerable. Air pollution is linked to conditions such as asthma and respiratory illness. Groundwater contamination can also lead to illnesses such as cancer and organ damage.

If you want to see environmental racism in action, just look at St. Gabriel, Louisiana. It's located along the stretch of the Mississippi running from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, which is known as 'Cancer Alley'.

Cancer Alley got its name because there are so many chemical and fossil fuel plants there, and they're spewing out dangerous pollution. Some of these plants were built near poor and Black towns, and because there wasn't much political opposition, they've made Louisiana's air the most toxic in the nation. Some parts of the state have cancer risks 50 times the national average.

Source: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/sacrifice-zones

The European Union has been dealing with an increasing number of crises for over a decade, whether economic, social, health-related, geopolitical or environmental. These crises show that the economic, fiscal and social policies put in place by national governments and the EU have not worked. They have damaged healthcare systems, public services, environmental protection and the fight against poverty and social exclusion. The idea behind the Union is to improve the lives of people in its member countries, tackle social exclusion and make sure everyone has a fair chance in society (Article 3 TEU). Its institutions are committed to making things more equal, especially when it comes to tax. But in reality, inequality has been growing. In fact, today the richest 1% of the world's population own almost half of the global wealth. And that same 1% also emit more CO2 than the poorest half of the planet.

To tackle these issues, it's crucial to completely rethink the European Union's approach to climate change. A few recent European initiatives, in response to the climate crisis, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, have started to change the Union's policies in this direction (Green Deal, RRF, SURE…). The plan is to keep these eco- and social transition policies going by introducing a tax on large-scale wealth, which the European Commission is starting. Several studies, including one recently carried out by the Laboratoire sur les inégalités mondiales(1) , have demonstrated that such a tax would accelerate the fight against climate change and inequalities. Contributing to the European Union's own resources, this tax would generate revenues that would make it possible to co-finance the ecological and social transition policies pursued by the Union and its Member States, taking into account their objective situation.

Source: https://www.tax-the-rich.eu/home#proposition

If you look at the whole life cycle of a nuclear plant, it’s clear that nuclear energy is a better option than fossil fuels like coal or natural gas. But it's a totally different story when we look at renewable energy.

When it comes to nuclear, there are emissions involved in uranium extraction, transport and processing. The construction of nuclear power plants is a long and complex process, and it also releases CO2. The same is true of the demolition of decommissioned sites. And finally, we have to think about the transportation and storage of nuclear waste, which also creates emissions.

Nuclear power plants are particularly risky in terms of the potential consequences of a severe accident. Nuclear reactors and their high-level spent fuel stores are vulnerable to natural disasters, as we saw with Fukushima Daiichi, and also to military conflict.

The different stages of the nuclear fuel cycle produce a lot of radioactive waste. No government has yet figured out how to safely manage this waste. Some of this nuclear waste is highly radioactive and will remain so for several thousand years. Nuclear waste is a real problem for our environment and for future generations, who will still have the responsibility of managing it in several centuries.

Sources: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315 ; https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/52758/reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-way-green-and-peaceful-world/

Carbon offsetting is a way for companies or individuals to make up for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by investing in projects that remove the same amount of emissions from the atmosphere. This is done through projects like reforestation, renewable energy, methane combustion/collection, and energy conservation.

If we rely on carbon offsetting without also reducing emissions, we'll struggle to meet our net-zero targets. If you do carbon offset projects right, you can reduce carbon or increase carbon storage. However, these projects are only short-term solutions because they don't tackle the main sources of carbon emissions, such as fossil fuel usage. Some international non-governmental organisations, like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and World Wildlife Fund-UK, have also criticised carbon offset projects, saying that these projects encourage a culture of climate pollution.

It's so important to be careful with carbon offsets that rely on land use in Global South countries. We need to make sure we're not transferring the burden of reducing emissions from wealthier countries to those already feeling the impact of the climate crises. For example, large-scale tree plantations can sometimes make soil worse or pose biosecurity risks like cross-contamination, which endanger the environmental benefits we're trying to achieve.

Source: https://earth.org/is-carbon-offset-a-form-of-greenwashing/

Deforestation is when forested land is deliberately cleared. From the beginning of time until now, forests have been cut down to make room for farming and grazing, and to get wood for fuel, manufacturing, and construction.

Deforestation has had a big impact on landscapes around the world. It's estimated that around 2,000 years ago, around 80% of Western Europe was covered in forest, whereas today that figure is around 34%. In North America, around half of the forests in the east of the continent were cut down from the 1600s to the 1870s, mainly for timber and agriculture. China has lost a huge amount of forest over the past 4,000 years. In fact, just over 20 percent of the country is still forested. A lot of the farmland we see today was once covered in forest.

Deforestation can also lead to more carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. Trees take in carbon dioxide from the air through photosynthesis, and this carbon is locked chemically in their wood. When trees are burned, this carbon returns to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. With fewer trees around to take in the carbon dioxide, this greenhouse gas accumulates in the atmosphere and speeds up global warming.

Deforestation also threatens the world’s biodiversity. Tropical forests are home to a great number of animal and plant species.

Source: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/deforestation/

It's estimated that around 775,000 workers, mainly women, in 1,200 factories across 65 countries make Adidas products. Almost all of the jobs are outsourced to factories in poorer countries, but Adidas has a lot of influence over the way these factories operate, and therefore over the lives of the people who work there. The workers are treated appallingly with a lack of basic dignity and respect at work. In Indonesia, workers have to get their managers’ permission just to go to the toilet. Some workers said they’d been verbally abused, had shoes thrown at them or been slapped across the face.

None of the workers Playfair researchers spoke to in China, Indonesia, Sri Lanka or the Philippines are paid a living wage. That’s a wage that covers the cost of basic necessities such as food, housing, clothing, healthcare and education. Not only can the workers not organise to get what they’re owed, they’re also effectively silenced from speaking out. At Adidas’ Indonesian suppliers, managers told workers they had to lie about their pay, working hours and conditions during Adidas factory audits. At a factory in China, a worker was fired simply for telling an auditor they worked until 10pm every day.

Source: https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/Adidas%20briefing.pdf

The power of multinational corporations is rapidly increasing. In the process of pursuing huge profits, big companies get away with exploiting people and the planet. The destructive effects are felt by communities who are either displaced to create space for industrial projects or exploited in brutal and often underpaid work conditions. Free trade and investment agreements protect these companies from anything that devalues their investments and create a stable legal environment for them to do business in other countries, where the laws are primarily nationally based. Until today, there is no proper legally binding international regulation of corporations to hold multinational corporations accountable. In more recent years, there has been a global push to hold such businesses criminally liable, particularly with respect to those aiding and abetting international crimes. MNCs systematically and without impunity violate human rights and destroy the environment. The rights of local indigenous communities to their territories, their livelihoods and and their self determination is not respected neither are the global climate concerns. Therefore there is an need for an international binding instrument that puts an end to corporate impunity, ends neocolonial practices and forces corporations to abide by clear social, labor and environmental standards.

Source: https://pure.bond.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/18264556/The_Complicity_of_Multinational_Corporations_in_International_Crimes.pdf

The International Labour Office (ILO) says that over a hundred countries (more than half of all countries) had national minimum wage regulations in 2020. Put simply, each of these countries has a minimum wage that's set by law. But the amount and level of this wage can vary a lot from one country to another. The countries without a minimum wage are mostly in the Global South, but there are also a few in Scandinavia and Austria. In Austria, wages in the lower wage groups are mostly negotiated through collective agreements, so there's no need for a state-imposed minimum wage. The ideal scenario would be a global minimum wage, where no employee anywhere in the world would be paid less than this defined wage threshold. A global minimum wage would put an end to unethically low wages that cause a “race to the bottom” and the existence of “low-wage countries” with below-average labour costs and exploitation. A global minimum wage would make it fairer for everyone by stopping companies from selling products that are cheap because they pay their workers very little.

"Furthermore, a global minimum wage would reduce poverty risks and improve the living and working conditions of employees in this wage segment and their families. Wages and state transfer payments are largely interdependent especially in countries with well-developed social security systems, so a minimum wage could reduce the amount of such transfers."

Source: https://www.goethe.de/prj/zei/en/art/23146047.html

'Land Grabbing' is the term used to describe the semi-legal or illegal acquisition of large areas of agricultural land by international corporations, private investors and state actors, mainly in countries of the Global South. This basically means that small farmers are being forced off the land they’ve farmed for generations without any legal ownership titles. Or, they’re forced to sell their land because they’re in debt from the high-interest loans. Investors use the agricultural land for industrial plant cultivation for the food and cosmetics industry or for fuel production.
The term was first used in 2008 by the non-governmental organisation GRAIN. Land grabbing often has negative consequences for people living in the affected areas. It's not uncommon for new plantations to destroy the livelihoods of small farmers. Wages are low, and unemployment increases due to higher productivity and the influx of migrant labour. Industrialised agriculture and the use of pesticides and mineral fertilisers cause major environmental damage.

Source: https://www.bpb.de/themen/kriege-konflikte/dossier-kriege-konflikte/539551/land-grabbing/

The modern medicine patent regime is a bit like a new drug with some pretty nasty side effects. It's a relatively recent innovation that, let's face it, isn't all that great. While there are differences between countries when it comes to pharmaceutical patents, the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has created a pretty uniform global system. This system is designed to encourage new medicines by giving inventors a government-granted monopoly, or patent, for 20 years. During this time, the patent holder can produce the medicine and charge whatever price the market will bear, without worrying about competition. Since we all need medicines to live and be healthy, prices are usually high in wealthy countries. But the thing is, medicines are usually pretty cheap to make. This has made the modern pharmaceutical industry one of the most profitable sectors in recent history.

The World Health Organisation regards the situation as a health rights concern and has concluded that "inequality and discrimination in access to essential medicines remain the key public" health challenge of our times.

There are some challenges with alternatives to the modern medicine patent regime. Push funding requires close monitoring and can't guarantee success in every effort to discover innovative medicines. For prize systems, it's tricky to determine a monetary value and terms that provide sufficient motivation for innovators, along with robust returns for the prize funders. But none of the possible limitations is as bad as the present skewed reward system, which results in unacceptable levels of suffering and death. The medicine patent system produces toxic results, and health rights advocates need to support effective and equitable alternatives.

Source: https://www.hhrjournal.org/2015/11/making-medicines-accessible-alternatives-to-the-flawed-patent-system-2/

The term "Climate debt" refers to the fact that the early industrialized countries accumulated their wealth not only through slavery and colonial plunder, but also through the appropriation of natural resources - such as the atmosphere, into which CO2 has been emitted for centuries. This possibility is no longer feasible for countries of the Global South without exceeding all the tipping points of the climate system. Climate debt explicitly points to the case that countries, companies and communities that have contributed the most to the climate catastrophe have incurred an immense climate debt. Climate justice raises the urgent need to confront the historical responsibility of the Global North and the financial compensation from the perpetrators for historical CO2 emissions and its consequences on the Global South.

Since at least the 1990s, international movements for global justice have thematised the climate debt owed from the Global North to the Global South and demanded climate or ecological reparations for it to address the cause of the climate crisis and pay back for the harm inflicted. Climate reparations are strategies and actions taken by a state to redress past and present systemic injustices related to the climate crisis and to transform the (global) economy to ensure climate justice, well-being and equity for all people worldwide. Even though, it would not be possible to undo the damage done, reparations seek to mitigate consequences, prevent harm to future generations and create a fairer world. It is therefore crucial not only to question the financial debt of the Global South to the Global North, but also to emphasize the historical, climatic and ecological debt of the North to the Global South.

A sweatshop is a small manufacturing company that employs workers in unfair and unhygienic conditions.
Many fast fashion retailers like H&M and Forever 21 get new shipments every day. They can sell a lot of clothes at low prices because they work with suppliers in Global South countries. These businesses then outsource the production to unregistered vendors who aren't subject to any laws. Put simply, these brands aren’t obliged to provide safe working conditions for their workers.
Sweatshops aren't a new thing. They've been in the news for decades. The fast fashion industry has been involved in a system that pays workers below the poverty line for a long time now, just to make more money. This business model, which is all about selling loads of clothes at rock-bottom prices, has meant that those who make the clothes are making less and less profit.
The fact that people keep buying new clothes has a big negative impact on humans and the environment. When you add in the fashion brands’ planned obsolescence, which means that clothes wear out more quickly because they’re poorly made, you have a business strategy that is bound to be wasteful.

Source: https://earth.org/sweatshops/

The Earth's natural resources are essential for the survival and development of the human population. However, there are limits to how much of these resources we can use because the Earth can’t renew them. We can renew freshwater, forests and harvested products, as long as we don’t exploit them more than they can be replenished. Fossil fuels and metal ores are non-renewable resources. While many of the effects of overexploitation are felt locally, the growing interdependence of nations and international trade in natural resources mean that the demand for and sustainable management of these resources is a global issue. The consequences of overexploitation include loss of biodiversity and extinction of species, the erosion of fertile soil resulting in increasing prices of agricultural commodity and the drastic reduction of CO2 sinks and therefore more air pollution. The future poses the challenge of not just conserving and the many forms and functions of nature but also creating an equitable home for people on a finite planet.

Sources: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-826-5409-5/page013new.html

The IMF and World Bank continue to be amongst the most relevant and significant powerful norm-setters, convenors, knowledge-holders and influencers of the international development and financial landscape.
One of the central criticisms of the World Bank and IMF relates to the political power imbalances in their governance structures where, as a result of voting shares being based principally on the size and ‘openness’ of countries’ economies, poorer countries – often those receiving loans from the BWIs – are structurally under-represented in decision-making processes.

The economic policy conditions they promote – often attached or ‘recommended’ as part of loans, projects, technical assistance, or financial surveillance – undermine the sovereignty of borrower nations, limiting their ability to make policy decisions and eroding their ownership of national development strategies.

Furthermore the Bank’s emphasis on using public resources to leverage (subsidise) private investment through its Maximising Finance for Development (MFD) approach demonstrates the state’s role has merely been reframed essentially to ‘create an enabling’ environment to allow the private sector to pursue its objectives.

Finally, the BWIs’ approach to development and economic policy, as well as their financing decisions, have generated long-standing and ever-more pressing criticisms related to the protection of the environment and staving off climate change.
Bank and Fund’s policies have failed to achieve their stated objectives and instead support an economic order that benefits elites and private sector interests at the expense of poor and marginalised communities.

As the Bank and Fund – and others – now face a challenge from ‘populists’ and far-right groups about the continued relevance of multilateralism amidst a changing global order, the BWIs continue to deny their role in creating the social, political and economic conditions that have led to the frustration and disenfranchisement that brought us here.

Source: https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2019/06/what-are-the-main-criticisms-of-the-world-bank-and-the-imf/