Reader Response
One of the aspects of
the reading which most caught my attention was in Chapter 2 of Environmentalism of the Poor when Mart’inez
discusses “the relationship between environmental conflicts and the language of
valuation” (18). Mart’inez identifies the difficulties involved in applying
economics to the environment by showing the multiplicity of aspects needed to
be taken into account when trying to calculate the value of an environmental
space. The profitability of a piece of land is not the only thing that must be
considered, so too the value of the space as an ecosystem and its aesthetic
value should be weighed up. But how is it really possible to combine and
compare these different qualities? How can we measure how visually or sensually
pleasing a space is or how this can be held up against the importance of the
space to wildlife? Mart’inez refers to the possibility of creating a “super
value”, however he also outlines the mutability of such a value judgement.
The problem to which
Mart’inez refers is a real topic that needs to be considered and discussed. It
is all too unfortunate that in current times it seems as though the
profitability of land is often considered before the other factors which may be
comparably as important if not more so. Mart’inez’s challenge to the idea that
a better economy means a more sustainable lifestyle also seems significant. As
he points out, more money does not necessarily mean more investment in
conservation or preservation, but rather it often leads to a greater output of
greenhouse gasses and higher use of resources. As a result the sustainability of
development and the possible impacts of a development on the environment is
another factor that needs to be considered.
The references made to
Marxist ideas are also interesting. The Marxist notion of the “fetishism” of
commodities relates to the environment because it implies the illusory nature
of value. Marx discusses objects or commodities but the idea is also fitting
for the environment. The value given to the material world is based upon
relational interactions and places and limited by time.
I agree with Martinez about this topic being a significant one. We can not expect the economy to get better and to fix our sustainability problems. Money is the reason for the issues with our non renewable resources, the more money a state has the more buildings, the more power and the more waste we clog our world with. the money is almost never used to put in solar panels or recycling bins or helping a poor community with cleanliness and proper waste practices. There could be funding to clean the oceans of our gigantic whirlpools of trash. but yet we focus on bigger better improvement in buildings more technology that takes us out of reality so that we do not see the destruction of of sustainable resources depleted, a whole slue of fragments in the argument more money means better sustainability.
ReplyDelete