public environmental protection

There is only one earth, but there are many countries, and human beings have more. So many people, groups, and countries with different interests make this urgent matter difficult.

When we talk about environmental protection, we are not just dealing with a scientific problem, it is complicated by the involvement of too many problems.

Economic issues, how much economic price can be paid for environmental protection, and how this will affect the society and people's livelihood, and how different interest groups view this matter that affects their cake. In the face of environmental protection, not everyone has common interests. When the water comes up, people in high places are not the first to be affected. He has enough time to escape, especially since we have to protect such a person because of his energy. And these people precisely influence the direction of policy to a large extent.

Political issues, environmental protection is not a matter that can see benefits in the short term, but the impact on the economy and employment is immediate and direct. Even if modern democracy does work well, is it capable and visionary enough to do what seems worthwhile in the long run? On the other hand, the interests and demands of the people are also varied. To give a very simple example, when faced with the risk of unemployment and loan repayment, he may have supported environmental protection yesterday, but it is more important to support the employment rate immediately today, and not cut his job. He may still be an environmentalist, but he may not be able to do much for the environment. "I know what's right, but I'm sorry I can't do it." We have too many more immediate dangers than environmental protection. After all, the premise of wanting to live better in a year is to survive this month.

Environmental responsibility issues in developing and developed countries. The earth is public, but resources are not. There is great inequality in the sharing of resources. This was mentioned in the first episode. So, whether people in developing countries are considered human, and whether they want to develop or not. Developed countries have taken the road of development and have been ahead of other countries by dozens or hundreds of years. Now they use environmental protection issues to restrict developing countries. How legitimate is this behavior? Another is the lack of a coercive international organization to urge and supervise countries to fulfill their environmental responsibilities. A signed agreement can be torn up when Trump turns his head. Does the earth still have so much time for human beings to argue? There is not much time left for humans.

Environmental protection is a public issue, but the most troublesome thing is that it is a public issue.

Back to the documentary itself, its idea is basically to say how many disasters and problems there are in the environment, and how urgent it is. Then interspersed with the resistance and twists and turns encountered by environmental protection, as well as this cause and so on. However, the shortcoming is that it lacks some more detailed and profound comparisons to measure the cost of environmental protection. Of course we know that the problems caused by the environment are big, but why is it more urgent than other problems? Why is environmental protection still a worthwhile thing to do when there are these costs, and why this is a price that must be paid. Again, its focus is on the moral imperative. But I have to admit that moral inspiration is somewhat powerless in the face of practical difficulties. There is flooding and famine over there, but the air conditioner is still on here. We share the planet, but not the resources, nor the disaster in the short term.

What can we ordinary people do. In the documentary, the perspective of ordinary people is missing. After reading it, I always get the impression that environmental protection is a matter of the country, of energy companies, and of how they formulate public policies. Ordinary people are absent. Of course, this may be a strategic consideration. If we impose moral responsibilities and obligations on ordinary people, it may worsen the environmental protection cause, which is already lacking in appeal. It is easiest for us to criticize only if the pot belongs to someone else or a government enterprise. In summer, turn up the air conditioner by 2 degrees, so sweating is unpleasant. I pay the electricity bill, why restrict my use of the air conditioner, I have to defend my legitimate rights.

Yes, this is a public issue. So, now we can only afford to turn off the lights for an hour to show environmental protection and deceive ourselves.