Addressing global environmental problems has historically been a problem. As the development gap between developed and developing countries increases, the difficulties of finding a sustainable solution to the current environmental crisis are increasing. Not only is the common ground shrinking, but states are finding the demand for harmful ecological practices elevated as well.

The United States, a leading producer of harmful gasses and biochemicals, needs to take initiative in pushing for pragmatic legislation that will have the capacity to bring about global environmental change. The only way to do this is to take control of the market, transforming capitalism from its current state, and the advocacy of such a harsh policy must come from those who benefit from it the most — the Millennial generation — DU.

Climate change is real. From melting glaciers to rising water levels, there have been countless studies and statistics that prove the existence of a rapidly warming globe.

Not only are these changes in climate, weather, and ecosystems affecting the current world, hypotheses suggest future increased pollution, natural resource depletion, increases in waste and problems with its disposal, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, ocean acidification, ozone layer depletion and acid rain.
Any of these occurrences are severe enough to alter standards of living and should warrant serious concern from students as we are the people who will be forced to live with these unprecedented changes.

This past month, the 120 heads of state met at the U.N. Climate Summit. Unfortunately, not many things were decided upon, and the policies that were written and signed (a policy outlining deforestation and promises to keep funding the Green Climate Fund) were non-binding. The primary problems faced by the U.N. Climate Summit in addressing global environmental problems were that 1) countries were unwilling to halt various aspects of development, claiming it is necessary in order to be competitive, 2) finding the funds to operate such extensive policies proved challenging and 3) for countries who do not release a lot of emissions, there is no incentive to change their policies to accommodate the needs of more developed nations.

Naomi Klein, author of the book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate,” proposed the addition of various regulations into the capitalism system. The book, published on Sept. 16 of this year, has already become a bestseller, showing that individual desires to save the earth still exist. Unregulated free trade and global warming have driven climate change for decades, putting short-term fiscal profits ahead of long-term sustainable practices. Regrettably, the only “green” cared about is the kind held in the Federal Reserve.

Nevertheless, increased citizen awareness and the harsh reality of a changing world has incentivized policy changes that are a step in the right direction for humanity. For example, at DU there are several organizations on campus that promote environmental protection. Citizen advocates as well as the promise of lasting advantages have spurred legislative action even from countries whose economies depend entirely on natural resources and their development.

Advantages such as having breathable air, drinkable water and a developed agricultural sector, though universal, are more beneficial to developing nations because of the inability of those nations to develop technologies and institute policies that would protect the environment without harming their economies and private sector.

Significant strides have already been taken toward conquering the challenge of renewable energy sources. Almost a quarter of the world’s energy in 2011 was renewable, and this percentage is expected to grow as nations expand their budgets to include divesting from fossil fuels. Only recent technological advances have made renewable energy sources more desirable and profitable, not only to the private sector, but also to the environment.

In order for this state-of-the-art equipment to bring about mass gains in stopping climate change, it is necessary to share it with lesser developed countries who do not have the ability to 1) develop their own technology or 2) buy it from the developed world. These countries find more incentive in pursuing short term prosperity because the long term is not accessible to the if they collapse as a sovereign state from lack of economic growth and civil success.

Capitalism cannot be depended upon to encourage greater effort on behalf of the struggling nations, so it is the duty of the Western, developed world, to provide these technologies to the state governments so that they too can pursue energy efficiency.

Tensions between developed and developing nations, however, will not be fixed by such a policy. Differences in prosperity continue to remain, but progress is no longer an idea for the future. Tensions that arise naturally, such as a weaker nation feeling fear or distrust in the face of a more developed country, can be overcome when the role of environmental protection becomes a legitimate concern. When other factors provide the stigma of “self-betterment” in providing aid and assistance, there is a level of hypocrisy and distrust.
In order to save the environment, specific policy changes need to be implemented that undermine the capitalist system. This may be seen counter-intuitive, but no alternatives remain.