Why We Should Campaign Against the Corporate Power - Article Example

Why We Should Campaign Against the Corporate Power Introduction The article seeks to address why we should campaign against the corporate power, political and economic systems that it supporting its people to live in a dump of plastic material. The writer is trying to mobilize against the political and economic system that is behind the production of this so-called plastic products. The author is also giving a different perspective on how we can handle the issue of plastic materials instead of seeking for the alternate methods of replacing the plastic product with other disposable products, he goes ahead to give the best solution to the problem by directing a fight to the corporate power and forces behind the production of the plastic materials. In this article, we are going to do a critical analysis of the author article and try to look at the broader way of solving the plastic crisis. An argument for the article The general perspective of the article is seeking to address the environmental crisis caused by the mass disposability of plastic junk. We can see that the main forces behind the problem being structural, commercial interest caused by political and economic systems that seek endless growth. The author also states that it’s not only about reducing our consumption but to take the fight to the system that is encouraging the production of these plastic materials. This means, all of us including the corporate power to take responsibility for our action. But because that is not the case, it seems like the only option is to take the fight against the political systems while at the same time trying challenging the economic outcomes. The author is also arguing that instead of replacing these plastic products, it is just better that we fight the source and all those who support the activity. Looking at it from both angles, I can see some truth in it, first it’s clear that selfish economic systems are taking advantage of the matter, they are the source of these junk and are using the political affiliations to make a good money from it. Regardless of the effects, it has on the environment nobody wants to talk the truth about it because there is a total corporation between the political systems and the economic system hence each one of them is trying to cover either back. For instance, the author is speaking of the likes of Attenborough and the BBC shying away from talking the truth behind the corporate power that is behind this mess, he goes ahead to even give an example in the series by Attenborough where he does very well in the first six episodes but skirts in the seventh episode. Sir David is concerned with matters that are not politically influenced because he doesn’t want to be blamed for doing the right thing. The BBC as well does the same thing which they do best, skirting around the obvious issue that needs urgent solutions. Speaking of prawn farming, a business that is booming now is another disastrous activity in the face of the sun. As we all know, most prawn fish like setting habitats under the mangrove forest, this prawn are scooped alongside most living organisms sharing the same habitat making prawn fishing one of the most fishing with bycatches. During the fishing of these prawn fish, a vast area of mangrove is destroyed causing a lot of damage to the marine ecosystem. Looking back at the article, we can also see that the author is also talking about the number of effects that corn farming would cause in case we consider replacing the plastic cups with cornstarch cups, the amount of land that will be needed at the same time the other types farming that would be replaced by corn farms to cater for the production of these corn material. This would be like shifting disasters, if we replace other crop production for corn production then we might suffer hunger just because we wanted to get rid of plastic material which not so logical. Another raised issue in the article was about the great pacific garbage, one of the crises facing the world right now and no one is taking responsibility for it. The issue of plastic crisis is now a global issue, the author saying that it even works I Africa because of the poor disposable measure which is very true, but it doesn’t end there, most of these African rivers drain their waters into the Oceans and then into the Sea hence catching up with the whole world. This, therefore, calls for an immediate and reliable transformation to intervene on the impacts caused by the plastic materials, therefore, the issue of asking “what should we use instead” is not a question here and the reals question that everybody should be asking himself/herself is “how should we live”. Having identified the corporate power as the core reason behind the plastic environmental crisis, the author says it has gone to the great length of transferring responsibility for structural forces to individual shoppers, these are the consumers who use the plastic in their every-day lives. This is absolutely factual as any selfish political affiliation will stop at nothing in making sure that they shift the blame of environmental crisis to the consumers. The fact we consume every day gives a room for another gap in the market, a report by the Canary Wharf Group stated that plastic food packaging as the main challenge to curbing the plastic use. The report says that consumers felt that there was a need for more recycling bins and better signage. Having considered this, we find that it's becoming quite difficult to question the political system for we the consumers are the first to take the responsibility of conserving the environment before any other person comes for our aid. An argument against the article According to George Monbiot, he talks about corn growing to be notorious for soil erosion and that it would replace other food production, but he forgot to mention that corn farming is the most widely grown crop in the US and the rest of the world. Despite its few disadvantages, corn products have a lot of benefits to both man and the animals. According to a report by the University of Mississippi, corn production has doubled for the last twenty years and its increasingly becoming the most popular crop grown in the world. Many industries depended on corn and especially meat industry depended heavily on corn for animal feeds, therefore if replacing the plastic cups with cornstarch cup would bring a relief to the ecosystem then I don’t see why we shouldn’t give it a try. The point of argument in the article is whether we should replace the plastic coffee cups with disposable cornstarch cups, George Monbiot challenges this call and is presented with a direct question “So what should we use instead?” but instead of giving a solution he rephrases the question to “How should we live instead?” then tells us “simply” but living simply is highly complicated. This kind of response doesn’t offer any solution to the problem, he skirts about just like the BBC and Attenborough. He knows very well that the issue of plastics to be a global crisis and that one man with a simple article cannot make a difference. A true reflection can be seen from the report released by the Canary Wharf Group that 84% of the UK resident were ready to a backlash to the retailer for not offering solutions to the plastic issue. This makes me wonder why can’t the residence(consumers) attack this corporate power that the author is talking about instead of going for the small fish like retailers. Although the argument is somewhat convincing the author's responses to the solution is just disturbing. It’s very logical to dispute an argument but your response should somehow convince the audience why you are disputing a certain argument. For our case, the author argues that the best thing to do if we want to crack the puzzle of the plastic issue is to direct the fight to the corporation and political systems. For years we have been using this plastic product simply because there has been no other better choice of option and thus why it’s still very legal for some of these companies that produce them, despite the environmental pollution it causes, the only solution so far has been minimizing its use for a perfectly proper long-lasting solution is still not available. Being that this is the actual case, fighting with whatsoever corporation is totally absurd and foolish for some of these industries are still running a very legal business under the law of their particular countries a good example being Uganda. So, the best solution is not to start blaming others, it would be very important to come up with innovative ideas that can help foster the replacement of plastic usage once and for all. The author also disputes that the fact that we cannot save the planet simply by taking responsibility for what we consume, he goes ahead to state that in order save the situation, we have to confront these forces responsible for the junk. However, the author does not specify who are this forces, what political or economic system. Even if the consumers would start a campaign against the use of plastic products based on the article, then it would be very difficult for them to confront any political or economic system for they don’t know which one in particular. Take for instance a report by the Canary Wharf Group, they conducted a survey on consumers, retailers and corporate business within the commercial and residential area in UK and they concluded that the consumers were exerting pressure on the retailer because they were their immediate sellers who sell these plastic products to them and not any other political or economic system as the author puts it. The report also states that about 84% were supporting the campaign against retailers and were ready to be loyal to only those retailers with an alternative to the plastic use. Creative The author has also outlined a very important feature in the article, he talks about the abandoned fishing materials being far more dangerous to marine life. Just to symbolize our throwaway society, about 46 % of the Great Pacific Garbage patch is composed of discarded nets which turn to pose a great danger to the marine ecosystem (Vince, J. and Hardesty, B. (2016). This point has been elaborated clearly by the World Animal Protection which estimates about 640,000 tons of fishing gears being left in the ocean each year causing a great damage to the marine life. Also, a report by FAO and UNEP has also stated that abandoned fishing nets “ghost nets” gears can stay in the water for quite a long duration causing great damage to the marine life. These ghost nets have resulted into some species becoming extinct, for example, the vaquita porpoise, species found only in Mexico’s Gulf of California is the most endangered species with an estimate of only 25 individuals left on earth. Also about the issue of plastic in the marine ecosystem, research says shows that about four million tons of trash are released into the sea every day causing some serious pollution to the marine life. Studies also show that due plastic ingestion into the sea has been killing about one million seabirds and a hundred thousand marine mammals (Zarfl, C., & Matthies, M. (2010). Among the most affected sea animals, studies show that a half of the sea turtle across the world has ingested plastic. This is mainly because the turtles feed on this plastic which eventually kills them. Although the author argues how these abandoned fishing gears and plastic can be detrimental to the marine life, he does not give a solution to the problem. Although since the article compares with the currents situation, there is some good news to the “ghost net problem, the World Animal Protection has launched the Global Ghost Gear Initiative to curb the issue of ghost nets in the marine environment. On top of that FAO and UNEP has recommended a number of measures to help tackle the situation. This measure includes; introduction of the monetary incentives to fishermen who find these ghost net, marking of the gears for identification purposes, the introduction of new technologies for tracking these lost gears and lastly encouraging of the fishermen to report of the authority any lost gears Just like the author puts it “Prawn farming is just as bad”, the fact that there is a large market for the prawn fish, we must also consider the environmental effects that come with farming of this fish. The prawn mainly uses mangrove forest as habitat and by fishing them large trucks of mangrove forest are destroyed annually. Selfishness has made people forget that mangrove is a very important aspect of the ecosystem in our planet. The mangrove plays a very important role that most people don’t know, the mangrove protects the marine environment by filtering the water from solid debris, absorbs excess carbon dioxide enough to destroy the ozone layer while at the same time providing a habitat for the endangered species. A report by the United Nations University states that if properly managed, Mangrove can provide a reliable source of income, protection, and food for the local population alleviating poverty (Kathiresan K, Bingham BL (2015). In fact, the UNU-INWEH has begun to educate people in India and the rest of the world on the importance of conserving mangrove forest. Just to mention but a few, the mangrove help in maintaining the shorelines from being damaged by hurricane winds and storm, they are also responsible for maintaining the quality of water and clarity, filters the pollutants and trapping the sediments which eventually provide food for the many marine organisms living below it. Having known this, it is therefore easy to decide which among prawn farming and mangrove survival is important. Conclusion This article generally focused on the environmental crisis caused by the mass disposability of the plastic material. It is now evident that the issue of plastic in our ecosystem is turning to be a national disaster and necessary action need to be addressed. Although George Monbiot has criticized the replacement of plastic cups with disposable coffee cups as non-solution, he does not give a long-term solution to the present issue but instead, he has left us scratching our heads on how we are going start fighting these so-called corporate power, political and economic systems. The future lifestyle will be determined by the present actions, it is therefore not so fair to leave a global crisis on the hand of a few organizations like FAO and UNEP to handle, but its upon us to hold hands and come with a creative, eco-friendly and long-term solution that can replace the use of plastic material completely. Reference Kathiresan K, Bingham BL (2015) Biology of mangroves and mangrove ecosystems. Vince, J. and Hardesty, B. (2016). Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: from local to global governance. Restoration Ecology, 25(1), pp.123-128. Zarfl, C., & Matthies, M. (2010). Are marine plastic particles transport vectors for organic pollutants to the Arctic? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(10), 1810–1814. Read More