What's racism got to do with environmental destruction?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- Racism, environmental destruction and big corporations are all linked.
We can't tackle the environmental emergency without tackling racism too.
0:00 Intro
0:56 The British Empire
2:31 Shell in Nigeria
3:20 Emissions and extreme weather
4:15 The plundering of resources and murder of Indigenous Peoples
5:31 How British plastic waste is dumped in other countries
6:05 Palm oil and deforestation
6:27 Inequality in the UK
7:24 What can we do?
Wanna know more?
www.greenpeace.org.uk/challen...
www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/en...
Presenter: Mya-Rose Craig
Producer: Anna Wells
Videographers: Cebo Luthuli, Ali Deacon
Editor: Ali Deacon
Archive: Elena Morresi
About us:
www.runnymedetrust.org/
www.greenpeace.org.uk/
www.birdgirluk.com/
Brilliant video! Very eye opening to the injustices. Thank you for sharing!
Brilliant video.
Your words are truly inspiring and touching.
And yes, as long as the world is ruled by money and power, racism and suppression will never end. So are the problems of nature.
We need to fight for a shared world, a world values people's rights and diversity, a world values everyone's life and nature.
wow everything does link back to imperialism and structural racism. great video more young people (and old alike) should see this!
How exactly "air pollution impacts people of color (white is not a color apparently) more"?
They have different lungs?
It's talking about proportions. If there is a higher proportion of people of a certain ethnicity localised in a specific neighbourhood, then the air quality of that neighbourhood will proportionately affect the group living there.
Thank you Greenpeace more education like this should surely help us all to make small changes to better the lives of all people, especially our attitudes. As a white British I’m embarrassed by how the country I was born in treated far off lands & it’s peoples to set the scene for future generations to continue damage to people of colour, climate & therefore our shared world environment.
Interesting physics there...
You are not listening
'disproportionately effecting' people of colour!!
@@lilykhandker4126 yes. HOW?
Do they have different lungs??
7:20 where you mentioned lives or buildings. it reminds me of the parralel where millions were raised when notre dame was burning but people refuse to speak up on the palestinian genocide
Thank you for highlighting this. Very clearly presented.
Absolutely brilliant. I completely agree that all forms of exploitation and discrimination are inextricably linked. Thank you for this - onwards together!
Greenpeace, keep up the good work.
That’s a very interesting video and thank you for sharing your educational knowledge…. That’s really helpful! Thank you Greenpeace ❤
3:31 I'd like to see a Citation on that graph. I smell a rat.
Exactly. Is all too well known that the biggest CO2 emitter in the world is now China and not the US anymore.
Does this really matter over healthy lives for all people & future generations?
@@anniepearson9617 lol? OF COURSE it matters ! Wtf is wrong with you?
Why would we crush our people with shitty EV cars when China pollutes like crazy and doesn't give a fuck !
If you watched the video you would have seen the citation was on the screen right next to the graph...
@@grosfromage5852 link is dead
The facts seems far rooted, but still logically linked. In my perspective: globalisation must be slowely halted. The solution: keep your heads together, inflitrate the corrupt systems and gradually persuade them into dissolving for the better good and to make room for sustainable alternatives. But I should keep studying instead of endlessly typing. :)
Thank You 💚 GREENPEACE 🍀
What complete shite! I don't pay my membership fees to support such tosh.
The British Empire was probably the most handsoff of all Empires, it was largely of trade and cooperation (usually from local potentates), when you look how tiny the British army and administration was in the army is just amazing it ruled at all.
From about 1830s the empire was a drain on the British taxpayer (this is backed up by decades of research by economists - including some PoC), a good example of this is that the area of what is now India (then the Raj) in the 50 years before independence economy grew faster than the 50 years after due large scale investment and open trade, rather than Republics autarky communistic policies, hence there were continued famines and extensive poverty after the British left.
And blaming capitalism may be partly right, but without capitalism you have the USSR (Aral Sea?) and China (the Yangtze is one of the most polluted rivers in the world) who caused far more environmental destruction than their ideological enemies.
And as others have noticed, race is less important than having a good focus on education and hardwork - see British Nigerians, British Chinese, British Hindus versus the British white working class, who have fallen behind most migrant groups.
To conclude, this is complete brain-dead communistic nonsense based on ideological driven analysis that chooses which data to use and ignore (I work in data).
We need capitalism, much not my annoyance to keep a reasonable life.
As that old film said, "What has the Roman Empire done for us..."
£45 trillion in today's money doesn't sound particularly 'hands off', more like theft and extortion on a grand scale.
You make accusations of 'communistic nonsense' and disregard slavery and forced labour: now that is ideologically driven.
You point at a handful of refugees and migrants who have done well while disregarding those in poor communities in the UK and a wholesale disregard for the deaths of millions in slavery and indentured servitude and labour around the world.
With capitalism and imperialism you have wholesale deforestation of tropical rainforest, huge contamination of the Niger Delta, Cancer Alley in the US with over 100 refineries, fracking especially in the US and Australia, dumping of 100's of millions of tonnes of waste on other countries, resource wars that create huge refugee crises and millions of deaths.
Try looking home before making accusations of other political ideologies.
@@JugglinJellyTake01 That is one interpretation - and the most recent and is yet to see a full criticism. From what I read it's based on a notional value due to Britain using the tax revenue from India's peasant labourers to pay for governance, military, infrastructure investment, the cost of lost trade, etc. This is then compounded with invented figure of 5% per year of interest and Bob's your uncle you end up with that fantasy figure.
Also, logically this isn't even possible - the figure of the Indian economy was never that big when calculated on an annual figure over the period of the British Raj - even when we include all the various kingdoms that were to become part of the Raj.
Additionally, the British economy grew faster during the post-colonial period then during - this may suggest that empire was a massive cash-drain - like Adam Smith and Gladstone believed at the time.
Older analysis by K.N. Chaudhuri and others, calculated about 0.5% a year of India's GNI was 'taken' by the British.
(And to be honest, the state of India in the 18th century was ongoing decline caused by endemic warfare - for example the Deccan sultanates were at nearly constant warfare with Vijayanagara Empire for hundreds of years, greatly impoverishing southern and central India - and weakening it to the point it took not many British troops to very quickly takeover the area. The Mughal Empire was weakened by a series of attacks from its northwest by Persian, Sikh and Afghan armies, the Marathas from the south, and then it went through massive deindustrialisation.
If the British hadn't come along and created what could be called Pax Britannica would likely been worse off by continued warfare and deindustrialisation.)
This is not to say there was some extraction of wealth, but that it wasn't the fantasy figure created by the Marxist economist Patnaik.
China has a capitalist economy, they just call it communist.
Absolute rubbish.
Come to Australia and see the impacts of your so-called hands-off British empire.
There was NO co-operation here. No treaty. There was a LOT of murder.
We've had 200+ years of generational trauma stemming from the absolutely appalling behaviour of the British colony which stole land under the absurd terra nullius policy and endeavoured to exterminate the longest living continuous culture on the planet. Massacres, poisoning wells and food supplies, removing Aboriginal children from their families, banning Indigenous languages and more... all this was the norm. Read about the Stolen Generation, the killing fields and frontier wars, the impacts climate change is having on the islands of the Torres Strait, and look at the data on kids in jails right now.
The entire ecosystem has been changed. 200 years ago the British invaders encountered an ecosystem that had been carefully kept in balance for over 60,000 years by our First Nations custodians. They immediately began clearing, grazing, and destroying. The continent is scarred by mines and coal seam gas wells. We are logging forests and clearing habitat at an alarming rate. Now we are leaders in species extinction.
I'm glad to see Greenpeace addressing issues of racism and the disproportionate impacts of environmental destruction and a capitalism that sees no limits - this has been a long time coming. There cannot be climate action without climate justice, and Indigenous voices leading the way.
Yea and get a white person to talk about racism lol
She may be not entirely white though since she said that her entire family lives in Bangladesh. 4:09
@@riccardopusceddu6232 she’s as white as a British settler lmao
@@riccardopusceddu6232 colourisim is also a form of racism accordingly to a friend "she is white passing" hence making her more palatable for green peace...does that mean the white folks living in South Africa are Black People?
Her family came from Bangladesh & if her skin is pale it’s pale. It’s the spoken word that is important
them yts in the comments 😯 surprising much? not so
I like fossil fuel
Fake news
Next we'll all be told that BLM is going to save the environment, quick give as much as possible to BLM and the earth will be fine
Not unlikely at all ;o
Kind of like far right sepratists!
I'm not disputing that people of color are more likely to live in more polluted environment but rather saying that is entirely their fault. In the UK and around the globe.
In Africa they're so poor not because of white colonialism. Rather the opposite: African nations which were more heavily colonized are in most cases far better off than those which were not.
In Africa they're so poor because they are keeping making too many children.
The same in the other most miserable places on Earth.
And what is Greenpeace doing? Are you writing about this root cause with due frequency? Not even close.
Instead you've decided to board the ship of those who blame whites for most problems our planet suffers.
That's why I felt no other option but to stop financing Greenpeace and I'll start again financing it only when Greenpeace will put most of its efforts to tackle the unjustifiable privilege people of color have nowadays, that is that of being free to make as many children as they like thus offsetting every little improvement in technology or in society to tackle the greatest of all extinction events which is happening before our own eyes just now.
BIG point you're totally missing here. Focussing purely on numbers of people is a very narrow way to view the world. The per head environmental impact of a poor african is a fraction of that of someone living a 1st world Western lifestyle. Say I am an average American, I drive a fuck-off big SUV, I eat a load of meat, I fly numerous times a year, I have a house packed with tens of thousands of consumer goods, I cool my house all summer with air-con, I heat it all winter... in terms of carbon emissions, pollution and waste how many people below the poverty line in the Niger Delta am I worth? 15, 20, 25 people living on just enough to get by? Hyper-consumption in first world countries is a HUGE issue. Overpopulation slows when countries improve in living conditions and education. These countries are in a bad state because (largely) the colonial powers went in and fucked them up in the past.
Stop funding and start acting towards change yourself. How does having more kids as a person of colour leads to environmental destruction again? This is not about poverty.
People in poor countries have large families in a large part because children are seen as an economic asset. Children work from a young age, on top of that they offer potential: they could become migrants and improve the livelihood of the family in the long term through remittances + other processes, such as positive multiplier effects on their community.
Children are also expected to take care of their parents in old age, which is their only lifeline seeing as the government hardly has money to look after the elderly.
There are also cultural reasons and tradition, of course, but there have already been birth control campaigns accepted by religious leaders in certain African countries, for example, and birth rates have dropped significantly.
This is also linked to women having more choice, which is linked to them having more education/work opportunities, which is linked to, guess what, MONEY.
It’s extremely close-minded of you to see “people of colour making too many children” as a cause of any of our problems as a global population. It is not BECAUSE of them having large families that they are poor - it’s BECAUSE of poverty that they have large families.
(Not to mention poverty -> poor healthcare -> very high infant mortality rates -> people have more children to compensate for expected deaths.)
In conclusion:
be quiet.
Environmental 'destruction' is a problem of today. How is Racism today linked to Climate Change or Conservation? and why are you playing the blame game? it seems as though you're trying to give some people a pass. The developed world is responsible, irregardless of politics or race.
It's simply causality.
Because rich White people continue to give them money. If they can make Rich White people feel guilty and shame then they get a continual flow of White Guilt money.