Gender Equality And State Environmentalism written by Kari Norgaard and Richard York is an argument that tries to correlate women’s’ oppression and environmental oppression as one single entity. Though their arguments are focused on how oppressed women are and not the bigger picture of how oppressed the poor are, they make some excellent points on bettering equality and diversity. To start one statement I feel is incorrect is when talking about how women in the global south have been left to suffer while men benefit from cash crops. I am not fully aware of the issue, but I would argue that maybe more responsibility of the household has been left to the women, because the men are out providing income for the house. Essentially, men are not benefitting from it, but the family unit is working to make an income and the men have taken on more of the responsibility in making money while the women are left to tend to the household duties. Essentially mixing a village lifestyle with a capitalistic goal.
I do strongly agree with their arguments of parliament and observations of women, that majority of world governments are not providing enough representation of women. Even our own 116th congress is only 22.7% filled with women. While this continues all over the world in our systems of representation, the rest of our societies are constantly pushing for diversity and having a rough micro representation equal to the macro statistics of races and sexes. They overall make a good point on how more women in government tends to increase environmental efforts with 30% being the bare minimum of women needed to get real change to start. Though with women being around 50% of the population why do they continue to not have that percent seen in our government? The authors also state how women are observed having different values as men finding that women are generally more aware of the environment than men, even when accounting for social statuses. Also, finding that women are more risk averse choosing not to follow through with a decision that will affect others negatively. Such as how female scientists with the same professional standings as their male counterparts are usually more weary of nuclear power and waste with the risks it imposes on others. I would argue if you perceive women as chaos (meaning the future, not being good or bad, but just the unknown) and men as order (the now and being the known better known as the present), then it would be easy to see that women are generally more risk adverse because they think in terms of the future. With nuclear energy as an example, a man might think oh wow, this can produce a lot of energy and be really beneficial right now, while a women might think well it is useful but the by product is nuclear waste and so what damage will that do in the future. I would say men are more prone to weighing the immediate pros and cons while women are more prone to weighing the long-term pros and cons. Both are useful, but both need to be equally represented to be at peak efficiency.
In the paper it is argued that capitalism is not ecologically sustainable, and in truth capitalism is not sustainable at all if we do not consider sustainability. Capitalism is an economic system that one could argue is order. It demands to do everything as quick as you can with the presently most optimal way of doing it without regard to cons, that if it will maximize profits then do it. Well with an economy based on order, then government needs to be based on chaos. That capitalism is good, but it is so quick and produces a lot of progress, but only considers the immediate pros and cons. Government which is a separate system should be pushing for chaos. It should consider the needs of today, but not forget to plan for chaos. To not pass unsustainable bills that will only work for the short terms. Now in the times of the great covid-19 scare, it can be seen more than ever. Our government has been living in order, working for corporations and allowing to put aside tomorrow for today. If our governments were more for the people, it would be better prepared for natural disasters, for plagues, and economic relief for the people in need, not the corporations being put at slight risk. Overall, one could argue with women’s more evolutionary role to nurture and think for the future not only should women be more prevalent in government, but the majority between men and women in government. Women would be more willing to think for the people, like Nancy Pelosi’s desired stimulus plan which included environmental regulations on business that was quickly denied by republicans. Not that democrats are better than the republicans, but they are just two different ways of thinking with one sticking its neck out more for the people directly.
in order to truly protect the Earth and ourselves, we must reorganize and redesign our whole global energy system. Also that we must rethink the way we live our everyday lives, and our expectations of the Earth. As a whole, the authors believe that not enough is being done to protect the Earth, which I completely agree with. I believe that in order to properly protect the environment a set of public controls of stricter regulations, punishments, and incentives need to be in place. The whole focus of regulation should be protecting and sustaining the environment as much as possible. Regulation should help be determine by environmental scientists, and leading field researchers to ensure that laws are effective and needed. Public controls should be a the forefront of environmental protection. A government’s job should be to protect the citizens it governs, and a major part of this protection comes in the form of the environment. This shift in focus should not stop at just regulation, but education should also teach adolescents about their every day impacts on the environment. As much as firms and industries are to blame for environmental destruction, the people add to this destruction. In order to properly protect the environment focus needs to be shifted on multiple fronts to form a more educated population that cares about the environment that surrounds them. With businesses that also have a mindset that at least respects the environment to live with it and help protect it from complete destruction, past the point of rebound.
The whole focus of regulation should be protecting and sustaining the environment as much as possible. Regulation should help be determined by environmental scientists, and leading field researchers to ensure that laws are effective and needed. Public controls should be a the forefront of environmental protection. A government’s job to protect the citizens it governs and a major part of this protection come in the form of the environment. This shift in focus should not stop at just regulation, but education should also teach adolescents about their every day impacts on the environment. As much as firms and industries are to blame for environmental destruction, the people add to this destruction. In order to properly protect the environment focus needs to be shifted on multiple fronts to form a more educated population that cares about the environment that surrounds them. With businesses that also have a mindset that at least respects the environment to live with it and help protect it from complete destruction, past the point of rebound. We must expect more from business, our governments, our neighbors, and especially ourselves. The government should be able to come in, strictly enforce the standards set, and violations were met with severe punishments then used for environmental rehabilitation we could see greater results with protection. Public pollution control set a measure for what business can and can not do if done properly and diligently the government would be able to properly prevent an overabundance of pollutants from reaching various parts of the environment.