Global environmental inequality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_environmental_inequality 

 

Plastic pollution in Ghana

Global environmental inequality refers to "the expression of an environmental burden that would be borne primarily by disadvantaged and /or minority populations or by territories suffering from a certain poverty and exclusion of these inhabitants." Global environmental inequality is an issue that affects both developing and developed countries across the globe.

Environmental racism

President Barack Obama sips filtered water from Flint following a round table on the Flint water crisis at Northwestern High School

The relationship between environmental racism and environmental inequality is recognized throughout the developed and developing world. An example of global environmental racism is the process in which the locations of hazardous waste facilities are higher in vulnerable communities compared to that of other areas. This is most commonly seen in the USA as the environmental racism gap is very prevalent in many states across the country. Environmental racism raises ethical issues but can also have implications for a state's laws and constitution, for example the “clean air act”, “the fourteenth amendment” and the “civil rights act”.

An example of a case of environmental racism is a small mainly African American (90%) town called Uniontown located in Alabama where there is a toxic landfill which is believed to have caused serious health issues in the area. Concerns include things such as mental health issues, a one-in-five chance of developing cancer and deficiencies in reproduction due to the toxins such as mercury and arsenic contained within the ash. The toxic landfill is used to dump millions of tons of coal ash which comes from mainly white wealthier areas. Uniontown is not an isolated case as it can be seen there are many examples across the states such as Flint Michigan who are dealing with a major water crisis, West Dallas Texas where African American housing projects have been set up twenty paces from a battery recycling smelter, and Chester Pennsylvania which has become an attraction for toxic waste sites. In California the government also decided to allow pollution in vulnerable communities. The effect of environmental racism is seen in the health data which shows that African Americans are three times more likely to die from asthma. Three out of five African Americans live in a community with a least one toxic waste site. On average it takes twenty percent longer for toxic sites in minority community towns to be placed on the national priority list than white areas.

Environmental racism is not only seen in the developed world but it is also prevalent in the developing world. Much hazardous waste in Africa is not actually produced there but rather was exported by developed countries such as the U.S; even though much of this exportation of waste took place in the 1980s Africa is still left with the problem of toxic waste sites to this day.

Income inequality

Environmental Kuznets curve showing an increase in environmental damage during industrial development followed by a decrease.

The relationship between economic inequality and environmental inequality plays a large roll in understanding certain reasons that account for the cause of environmental inequality. The association between income inequality and environmental inequality can be measured by the environmental Kuznets curve. This curve states that when income per capita is high, the rate of pollution in that area rises until income reaches a certain threshold, once this threshold of wealth is passed then pollution in that area begins to decrease. In the case of developing nations an increase in pollution and production of greenhouse gases occurs as that nation undergoes economic growth, therefore for developing nations to escape poverty through growth pollution must be produced. This pollution is often caused through industry and manufacturing. Once the developing nation becomes a developed nation then we begin to see a drop off in pollution as a better alternative to high pollution industry can be found to stimulate the economy. Renewable energy has been more expensive to produce and maintain than traditional energy produced by fossil fuels and has only recently become as cost efficient as fossil fuels. Since the discovery of greener energy sources only richer developed nations have been able to invest and integrate renewable energy into their power production industries.

In countries such as Russia it has been found that in areas where income was higher that there was an increase in uncontrolled air pollution. However while income may have been higher in these regions a greater disparity in income inequality was found. It was discovered that "greater income inequality within a region is associated with more pollution, implying that it is not only the level of income that matters but also its distribution". In Russia areas lacking in hospital beds suffer from greater air pollution than areas with higher numbers of beds per capita which implies that the poor or inadequate distribution of public services also may add to the environmental inequality of that region.

Another consequence of income inequality's association with environmental inequality is the environmental privilege of consumers in developed countries, "consumers of goods and services that are produced by polluting industries [who] often are spatially and socially separated from the people who bear the impacts of the pollution". Those who are working in the production of consumer goods suffer a disproportionate amount the consequences of environmental deterioration that their more affluent consumer counterparts.

Inequality in the United States

In the United States it was also found that income inequality greatly affected the quality of the environment in which people live. People of colour and the poor in America on average experience much lower quality environments then white people or the wealthy. Action was taken in the early 1990s by the American Government in an attempt to improve environmental quality for poorer regions. In 1992 the United States Environmental Protection Agency set up the Office of Environmental Equity, now known as the Office of Environmental Justice, to address the situation at hand. However the Office of Environmental Justice's work was undermined by Congress who refused to pass the bills which were presented to them by the EPA. Instead states began to pass their own bills which did very little to improve environmental quality for poorer areas. As a result, there has been little to no change in the ratios of environmental inequality whereas there has been a decline in the ratios of race and poverty.

Environmental change in developing countries

Cattle in the River Ganges with pollution on the bank

Global environmental inequality is primarily seen in developing countries. In recent years we have seen a change in China's production industry in relation from the movement from the primary sector of production moving into the secondary sector. China's urbanization has caused a rise in the production of factories. In China factories create harmful waste such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide which cause health risk. Journalist and science writer Fred Pearce notes that in China "most monitoring of urban air still concentrates on one or at most two pollutants, sometimes particulates, sometimes nitrogen oxides or sulfur dioxides or ozone. Similarly, most medical studies of the impacts of these toxins look for links between single pollutants and suspected health effects such as respiratory disease and cardiovascular conditions." The country emits about a third of all the human-made sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulates that are poured into the air around the world. The Global Burden of Disease Study, an international collaboration, estimates that 1.1 million Chinese die from the effects of this air pollution each year, roughly a third of the global death toll." The economic cost of deaths due to air pollution is estimated at 267 billion yuan (US$38 billion) per year. 

Climate change and environmental inequality

The main issue faced by developed countries in the western world is climate change. Climate change and its effects are being escalated due to the actions of many developed countries. The use of fossil fuels has resulted in an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 33% in the past 150 years. However, the effects of climate change will be worse in areas with less food security. Due to the changes in temperature and precipitation, combined with the increase in levels of greenhouse gases emitted, it is becoming more and more difficult to produce sustainable crops. This dangerous combination leads to constant fluctuating levels of trade.  The main causes of short-term fluctuations in food production are natural disasters, such as drought and floods. When climate fluctuations become more prevalent and widespread, extreme natural events will become more severe and more frequent. With the demand for food expected to increase by 50% by 2030 alongside a growing population, food security is becoming vital. In temperate latitudes, higher temperatures are expected to benefit agriculture, as the areas that are potentially suitable for cropping will expand, and the length of the growing period will also increase.

However, with the rise in temperature, comes a rise in extreme events, such as heatwaves which may lead to drought. For example, in the summer of 2018, Ireland experienced the hottest summer on record since 1976. This heatwave lead to a 53 day period of "absolute drought conditions", and as a result, there was an increase in crop failures.  The increase in frequency of these extreme events affect the stability of food supplies and thus food security. When food supplies get damaged by weather, access to food also becomes damaged. When developing countries are faced with extreme events, and certain crops can no longer be produced due to sustainability, the access to certain foods, such as cereals and exotic fruits, become unavailable to the people living in developed countries. The areas that will be mostly affected by crop failure are found in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia. This means that the regions that will be exposed to the highest degree of instability in food production are the poorest regions in developing countries.  Climate change will affect all dimensions of food security, in particular food availability, access to food, and stability of food supplies. The overall impact of climate change on food security will affect both developing countries and developed countries, however, the effects will be felt differently across regions and over different periods of time.

Ecological footprint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint 

 

World map of countries by their raw ecological footprint, relative to the world average biocapacity (2007).

 

National ecological surplus or deficit, measured as a country's biocapacity per person (in global hectares) minus its ecological footprint per person (also in global hectares). Data from 2013.

−9

−8

−7

−6

−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

2

4

6

8

The ecological footprint is a method promoted by the Global Footprint Network to measure human demand on natural capital, i.e. the quantity of nature it takes to support people or an economy. It tracks this demand through an ecological accounting system. The accounts contrast the biologically productive area people use for their consumption to the biologically productive area available within a region or the world (biocapacity, the productive area that can regenerate what people demand from nature). In short, it is a measure of human impact on the environment.

Footprint and biocapacity can be compared at the individual, regional, national or global scale. Both footprint and biocapacity change every year with number of people, per person consumption, efficiency of production, and productivity of ecosystems. At a global scale, footprint assessments show how big humanity's demand is compared to what Earth can renew. Global Footprint Network estimates that, as of 2014, humanity has been using natural capital 1.7 times as fast as Earth can renew it, which they describe as meaning humanity's ecological footprint corresponds to 1.7 planet Earths.

Ecological footprint analysis is widely used around the world in support of sustainability assessments. It enables people to measure and manage the use of resources throughout the economy and explore the sustainability of individual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations.

Overview

The first academic publication about ecological footprints was by William Rees in 1992. The ecological footprint concept and calculation method was developed as the PhD dissertation of Mathis Wackernagel, under Rees' supervision at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, from 1990–1994. Originally, Wackernagel and Rees called the concept "appropriated carrying capacity". To make the idea more accessible, Rees came up with the term "ecological footprint", inspired by a computer technician who praised his new computer's "small footprint on the desk". In 1996, Wackernagel and Rees published the book Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.

The simplest way to define ecological footprint is the amount of the environment necessary to produce the goods and services necessary to support a particular lifestyle.

The model is a means of comparing consumption and lifestyles, and checking this against biocapacity. The tool can inform policy by examining to what extent a nation uses more (or less) than is available within its territory, or to what extent the nation's lifestyle would be replicable worldwide. The footprint can also be a useful tool to educate people about overconsumption, with the aim of altering personal behavior. Ecological footprints may be used to argue that many current lifestyles are not sustainable. Such a global comparison also clearly shows the inequalities of resource use on this planet.

The GHG footprint or the more narrow carbon footprint are a component of the ecological footprint. Often, when only the carbon footprint is reported, it is expressed in weight of CO
2 (or CO2e representing GHG warming potential (GGWP)), but it can also be expressed in land areas like ecological footprints. Both can be applied to products, people or whole societies.

Methodology

The natural resources of Earth are finite, and unsustainable given current levels of use.

The focus of ecological footprint accounting is renewable resources. The total amount of such resources which the plant produces according to this model has been dubbed biocapacity. Ecological footprints can be calculated at any scale: for an activity, a person, a community, a city, a town, a region, a nation, or humanity as a whole. Footprint values are categorized for carbon, food, housing, goods and services. This approach can be applied to an activity such as the manufacturing of a product or driving of a car. This resource accounting is similar to life-cycle analysis wherein the consumption of energy, biomass (food, fiber), building material, water and other resources are converted into a normalized measure of land area called global hectares (gha).

Since 2003, Global Footprint Network has calculated the ecological footprint from UN data sources for the world as a whole and for over 200 nations (known as the National Footprint Accounts). The total footprint number of Earths needed to sustain the world's population at that level of consumption are also calculated. Every year the calculations are calibrated. The time series are recalculated with every update since UN statistics also change historical data sets. Lin et al. (2018) finds that the trends for countries and the world have stayed consistent despite data updates. Also, a recent study by the Swiss Ministry of Environment independently recalculated the Swiss trends and reproduced them within 1–4% for the time period that they studied (1996–2015). Since 2006, a first set of ecological footprint standards exist that detail both communication and calculation procedures. The latest version are the updated standards from 2009.

The ecological footprint accounting method at the national level is described on the website of Global Footprint Network or in greater detail in academic papers, including Borucke et al.

The National Accounts Review Committee has published a research agenda on how to improve the accounts.

Footprint measurements

Ecological footprints in 2018.

For 2014 Global Footprint Network estimated humanity's ecological footprint as 1.7 planet Earths. According to their calculations this means that humanity's demands were 1.7 times more than what the planet's ecosystems renewed.

In 2007, the average biologically productive area per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. The U.S. footprint per capita was 9.0 gha, and that of Switzerland was 5.6 gha, while China's was 1.8 gha. The WWF claims that the human footprint has exceeded the biocapacity (the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 20%. Wackernagel and Rees originally estimated that the available biological capacity for the 6 billion people on Earth at that time was about 1.3 hectares per person, which is smaller than the 1.8 global hectares published for 2006, because the initial studies neither used global hectares nor included bioproductive marine areas.

Ecological Footprint per person and HDI of countries by world regions (2014) and its natural resource consumption

According to the 2018 edition of the National footprint accounts, humanity's total ecological footprint has exhibited an increasing trend since 1961, growing an average of 2.1% per year (SD= 1.9). Humanity's ecological footprint was 7.0 billion gha in 1961 and increased to 20.6 billion gha in 2014. The world-average ecological footprint in 2014 was 2.8 global hectares per person. The carbon footprint is the fastest growing part of the ecological footprint and accounts currently for about 60% of humanity's total ecological footprint.

The Earth's biocapacity has not increased at the same rate as the ecological footprint. The increase of biocapacity averaged at only 0.5% per year (SD = 0.7). Because of agricultural intensification, biocapacity was at 9.6 billion gha in 1961 and grew to 12.2 billion gha in 2016.

According to Wackernagel and his organisation, the Earth has been in "overshoot", where humanity is using more resources and generating waste at a pace that the ecosystem can't renew, since the 1970s. In 2018, Earth Overshoot Day, the date where humanity has used more from nature than the planet can renew in the entire year, was estimated to be August 1. Now more than 85% of humanity lives in countries that run an ecological deficit.

According to Rees, "the average world citizen has an eco-footprint of about 2.7 global average hectares while there are only 2.1 global hectare of bioproductive land and water per capita on earth. This means that humanity has already overshot global biocapacity by 30% and now lives unsustainabily by depleting stocks of 'natural capital'."

Footprint by country

Ecological footprint for different nations compared to their Human Development Index.

The world-average ecological footprint in 2013 was 2.8 global hectares per person. The average per country ranges from over 10 to under 1 global hectares per person. There is also a high variation within countries, based on individual lifestyle and economic possibilities.

The Western Australian government State of the Environment Report included an Ecological Footprint measure for the average Western Australian seven times the average footprint per person on the planet in 2007, a total of about 15 hectares.

Studies in the United Kingdom

The UK's average ecological footprint is 5.45 global hectares per capita (gha) with variations between regions ranging from 4.80 gha (Wales) to 5.56 gha (East England).

BedZED, a 96-home mixed-income housing development in South London, was designed by Bill Dunster Architects and sustainability consultants BioRegional for the Peabody Trust. Despite being populated by relatively average people, BedZED was found to have a footprint of 3.20 gha (not including visitors), due to on-site renewable energy production, energy-efficient architecture, and an extensive green lifestyles program that included London's first carsharing club. Findhorn Ecovillage, a rural intentional community in Moray, Scotland, had a total footprint of 2.56 gha, including both the many guests and visitors who travel to the community. However, the residents alone had a footprint of 2.71 gha, a little over half the UK national average and one of the lowest ecological footprints of any community measured so far in the industrialized world. Keveral Farm, an organic farming community in Cornwall, was found to have a footprint of 2.4 gha, though with substantial differences in footprints among community members.

Ecological footprint at the individual level

In a 2012 study of consumers acting 'green' vs. 'brown' (where green people are "expected to have significantly lower ecological impact than 'brown' consumers"), the conclusion was "the research found no significant difference between the carbon footprints of green and brown consumers". A 2013 study concluded the same.

Reviews and critiques

Early criticism was published by van den Bergh and Verbruggen in 1999, which was updated in 2014. Another criticism was published in 2008. A more complete review commissioned by the Directorate-General for the Environment (European Commission) was published in June 2008. The review found the concept unique and useful for assessing progress on the EU’s Resource Strategy, but that further improvements in data quality, methodologies and assumptions were needed.

A recent critique of the concept is due to Blomqvist et al. (2013) with a reply from Rees and Wackernagel (2013), and a rejoinder by Blomqvist et al. (2013)

An additional strand of critique is from Giampietro and Saltelli (2014), with a reply from Goldfinger et al., 2014, a rejoinder by Giampietro and Saltelli (2014),. A joint paper summarising the terms of the controversy was finally authored by the two involved teams in the journal Ecological indicators. Additional comments were offered by van den Bergh and Grazi (2015).

A number of countries have engaged in research collaborations to test the validity of the method. This includes Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, the United Arab Emirates and Belgium.

Grazi et al. (2007) have performed a systematic comparison of the ecological footprint method with spatial welfare analysis that includes environmental externalities, agglomeration effects and trade advantages. They find that the footprint method does not lead to maximum social welfare.

Newman (2006) has argued that the ecological footprint concept may have an anti-urban bias, as it does not consider the opportunities created by urban growth. Calculating the ecological footprint for densely populated areas, such as a city or small country with a comparatively large population — e.g. New York and Singapore respectively — may lead to the perception of these populations as "parasitic". This is because these communities have little intrinsic biocapacity, and instead must rely upon large hinterlands. Critics argue that this is a dubious characterization since farmers in developed nations may easily consume more resources than urban inhabitants, due to transportation requirements and the unavailability of economies of scale. Furthermore, such moral conclusions seem to be an argument for autarky. Some even take this train of thought a step further, claiming that the footprint denies the benefits of trade. Therefore such critics argue that the footprint can only be applied globally.

The method rewards the replacement of original ecosystems with high-productivity agricultural monocultures by assigning a higher biocapacity to such regions. For example, replacing ancient woodlands or tropical forests with monoculture forests or plantations may improve the ecological footprint. Similarly if organic farming yields were lower than those of conventional methods, this could result in the former being "penalized" with a larger ecological footprint. Complementary biodiversity indicators attempt to address this. The WWF's Living Planet Report combines the footprint calculations with the Living Planet Index of biodiversity. A modified ecological footprint that takes biodiversity into account has been created for use in Australia.

Collective narcissism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_narcissism 

Collective narcissism (or group narcissism) extends the concept of individual narcissism onto the social level of self. It is a tendency to exaggerate the positive image and importance of a group the individual belongs to, be it defined by, religion, social class, race, political stance, language group, nationalism, employment status, education level or cultural values– i.e. the ingroup. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism asserts that one can have a similar excessively high opinion of a group, and that a group can function as a narcissistic entity. Collective narcissism is related to ethnocentrism. However, ethnocentrism primarily focuses on self-centeredness at an ethnic or cultural level, while collective narcissism is extended to any type of ingroup, beyond just cultures and ethnicities. While ethnocentrism is an assertion of the ingroup's supremacy, collective narcissism is a self-defensive tendency to invest unfulfilled self-entitlement into a belief about ingroup's uniqueness and greatness. Thus, the ingroup is expected to become a vehicle of actualisation of frustrated self-entitlement. When applied to a national group, collective narcissism is similar to nationalism: a desire for national supremacy. Positive overlap between ingroup satisfaction and collective narcissism suppresses collective narcissistic intergroup hostility.

Development of the concept

In Sigmund Freud's 1922 study Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, he noted how every little canton looks down upon the others with contempt, as an instance of what would later to be termed Freud's theory of collective narcissism. Wilhelm Reich and Isaiah Berlin explored what the latter called the rise of modern national narcissism: the self-adoration of peoples. "Group narcissism" is described in a 1973 book entitled The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness by psychologist Erich Fromm. In the 1990s, Pierre Bourdieu wrote of a sort of collective narcissism affecting intellectual groups, inclining them to turn a complacent gaze on themselves. Noting how people's desire to see their own groups as better than other groups can lead to intergroup bias, Henri Tajfel approached the same phenomena in the seventies and eighties, so as to create social identity theory, which argues that people's motivation to obtain positive self-esteem from their group memberships is one driving-force behind in-group bias. The term "collective narcissism" was highlighted anew by researcher Agnieszka Golec de Zavala who created the Collective Narcissism Scale and developed research on intergroup and political consequences of collective narcissism. People who score high on the Collective Narcissists Scale agree that their group's importance and worth are not sufficiently recognised by others and that their group deserves special treatment. They insist that their group must obtain special recognition and respect.

The Scale was modelled on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. However, collective and individual narcissism are modestly correlated. Only collective narcissism predicts intergroup behaviours and attitudes. Collective narcissism is related to vulnerable narcissism (individual narcissism manifesting as distrustful and neurotic interpersonal style), and grandiose narcissism (individual narcissism manifesting as exceedingly self-aggrandising interpersonal style) and to low self-esteem. This is in line with theorising of Theodore Adorno who proposed that collective narcissism motivated support for the Nazi politics in Germany and was a response to undermined sense of self-worth.

Characteristics and consequences

Collective narcissism is characterized by the members of a group holding an inflated view of their ingroup which requires external validation. Collective narcissism can be exhibited by an individual on behalf of any social group or by a group as a whole. Research participants found that they could apply statements of the Collective Narcissism Scale to various groups: national, ethnic, religious, ideological, political, students of the same university, fans of the same football team, professional groups and organizations Collectively narcissistic groups require external validation, just as individual narcissists do. Organizations and groups who exhibit this behavior typically try to protect their identities through rewarding group-building behavior (this is positive reinforcement).

Collective narcissism predicts retaliatory hostility to past, present, actual and imagined offences to the ingroup and negative attitudes towards groups perceived as threatening. It predicts constant feeling threatened in intergroup situations that require a stretch of imagination to be perceived as insulting or threatening. For example, in Turkey, collective narcissists felt humiliated by the Turkish wait to be admitted to the European Union. After a transgression as petty as a joke made by a Polish celebrity about the country's government, Polish collective narcissists threatened physical punishment and openly rejoiced in the misfortunes of their "offender". Collective narcissism predicts conspiracy thinking about secretive malevolent actions of outgroups.

Individual/Collective Narcissism Equivalencies

Individual	Collective
I wish people would recognize my authority	I wish other people would recognize the authority of my group
I have natural talent for influencing people	My group has all predispositions to influence others
If I ruled the world it would be a much better place	If my group ruled the world it would be a much better place
I am an extraordinary person	My group is extraordinary
I like to be the center of attention	I like when my group is the center of attention
I will never be satisfied until I get what I deserve	I will never be satisfied until my group gets all that it deserves
I insist upon getting the respect that is due to me	I insist upon my group getting the respect that is due to it
I want to amount to something in the eyes of the world	I want my group to amount to something in the eyes of the world
People never give me enough recognition for the things I've done	Not many people seem to understand the full importance of my group

Collective vs. individual

There are several connections, and intricate relationships between collective and individual narcissism, or between individual narcissism stemming from group identities or activities. No single relationship between groups and individuals, however, is conclusive or universally applicable. In some cases, collective narcissism is an individual's idealization of the ingroup to which it belongs, while in another the idealization of the group takes place at a more group-level, rather than an instillation within each individual member of the group. In some cases, one might project the idealization of himself onto his group, while in another case, the development of individual-narcissism might stem from being associated with a prestigious, accomplished, or extraordinary group.

An example of the first case listed above is that of national identity. One might feel a great sense of love and respect for one's nation, flag, people, city, or governmental systems as a result of a collectively narcissistic perspective. It must be remembered that these feelings are not explicitly the result of collective narcissism, and that collective narcissism is not explicitly the cause of patriotism, or any other group-identifying expression. However, glorification of one's group (such as a nation) can be seen in some cases as a manifestation of collective narcissism.

In the case where the idealization of self is projected onto ones group, group-level narcissism tends to be less binding than in other cases. Typically in this situation the individual—already individually narcissistic—uses a group to enhance his own self-perceived quality, and by identifying positively with the group and actively building it up, the narcissist is enhancing simultaneously both his own self-worth, and his group's worth. However, because the link tends to be weaker, individual narcissists seeking to raise themselves up through a group will typically dissociate themselves from a group they feel is damaging to their image, or that is not improving proportionally to the amount of support they are investing in the group.

Involvement in one's group has also been shown to be a factor in the level of collective narcissism exhibited by members of a group. Typically a more involved member of a group is more likely to exhibit a higher opinion of the group. This results from an increased affinity for the group as one becomes more involved, as well as a sense of investment or contribution to the success of the group. Also, another perspective asserts that individual narcissism is related to collective narcissism exhibited by individual group members. Personal narcissists, seeing their group as a defining extension of themselves, will defend their group (collective narcissism) more avidly than a non-narcissist, to preserve their own perceived social standing along with their group's. In this vein, a problem is presented; for while an individual narcissist will be heroic in defending his or her ingroup during intergroup conflicts, he or she may be a larger burden on the ingroup in intragroup situations by demanding admiration, and exhibiting more selfish behavior on the intragroup level—individual narcissism.

Conversely, another relationship between collective narcissism and the individual can be established with individuals who have a low or damaged ego investing their image in the well-being of their group, which bears strong resemblance to the "ideal-hungry" followers in the charismatic leader-follower relationship. As discussed, these ego-damaged group-investors seek solace in belonging to a group; however, a charismatic, strong leader is not always requisite for someone weak to feel strength by building up a narcissistic opinion of their own group.

The charismatic leader-follower relationship

Another sub-concept encompassed by collective narcissism is that of the "Charismatic Leader-Follower Relationship" theorized by political psychologist Jerrold Post. Post takes the view that collective narcissism is exhibited as a collection of individual narcissists, and discusses how this type of relationship emerges when a narcissistic charismatic leader, appeals to narcissistic "ideal-hungry" followers.

An important characteristic of the leader follower-relationship are the manifestations of narcissism by both the leader and follower of a group. Within this relationship there are two categories of narcissists: the mirror-hungry narcissist, and the ideal-hungry narcissist—the leader and the followers respectively. The mirror-hungry personality typically seeks a continuous flow of admiration and respect from his followers. Conversely, the ideal-hungry narcissist takes comfort in the charisma and confidence of his mirror-hungry leader. The relationship is somewhat symbiotic; for while the followers provide the continuous admiration needed by the mirror-hungry leader, the leader's charisma provides the followers with the sense of security and purpose that their ideal-hungry narcissism seeks. Fundamentally both the leader and the followers exhibit strong collectively narcissistic sentiments—both parties are seeking greater justification and reason to love their group as much as possible.

Perhaps the most significant example of this phenomenon would be that of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler's charisma and polarizing speeches satisfied the German people's hunger for a strong leader. Hitler's speeches were characterized by their emphasis on "strength"—referring to Germany—and "weakness"—referring to the Jewish people. Some have even described Hitler's speeches as "hypnotic"—even to non-German speakers—and his rallies as "watching hypnosis on large scale". Hitler's charisma convinced the German people to believe that they were not weak, and that by destroying the perceived weakness from among them (the Jews), they would be enhancing their own strength—satisfying their ideal-hungry desire for strength, and pleasing their mirror-hungry charismatic leader.

Intergroup aggression

Collective narcissism has been shown to be a factor in intergroup aggression and bias. Primary components of collectively narcissistic intergroup relations involve aggression against outgroups with which collective narcissistic perceive as threatening. Collective narcissism helps to explain unreasonable manifestations of retaliation between groups. A narcissistic group is more sensitive to perceived criticism exhibited by outgroups, and is therefore more likely to retaliate. Collective narcissism is also related to negativity between groups who share a history of distressing experiences. The members of a narcissistic ingroup are likely to assume threats or negativity towards their ingroup where threats or negativity were not necessarily implied or exhibited. It is thought that this heightened sensitivity to negative feelings towards the ingroup is a result of underlying doubts about the greatness of the ingroup held by its members.

Similar to other elements of collective narcissism, intergroup aggression related to collective narcissism draws parallels with its individually narcissistic counterparts. An individual narcissist might react aggressively in the presence of humiliation, irritation, or anything threatening to his self-image. Likewise, a collective narcissist, or a collectively narcissistic group might react aggressively when the image of the group is in jeopardy, or when the group is collectively humiliated.

A study conducted among 6 to 9 year-olds by Judith Griffiths indicated that ingroups and outgroups among these children functioned relatively identical to other known collectively narcissistic groups in terms of intergroup aggression. The study noted that children generally had a significantly higher opinion of their ingroup than of surrounding outgroups, and that such ingroups indirectly or directly exhibited aggression on surrounding outgroups.

Ethnocentrism

Collective narcissism and ethnocentrism are closely related; they can be positively correlated and often shown to be coexistent, but they are independent in that either can exist without the presence of the other. In a study conducted by Boris Bizumic, some ethnocentrism was shown to be an expression of group-level narcissism. It was noted, however, that not all manifestations of ethnocentrism are narcissistically based, and conversely, not all cases of group-level narcissism are by any means ethnocentric.

It is suggested that ethnocentrism, when pertaining to discrimination or aggression based on the self-love of one's group, or in other words, based on exclusion from one's self-perceived superior group is an expression of collective narcissism. In this sense, it might be said the collective and group narcissism overlap with ethnocentrism depending on given definitions, and the breadth of their acceptance.

In the world

In general, collective narcissism is most strongly manifested in groups that are "self-relevant", like religions, nationality, or ethnicity. As discussed earlier, phenomena such as national identity (nationality) and Nazi Germany (ethnicity and nationality) are manifestations of collective narcissism among groups that critically define the people who belong to them.

In addition to this, the collective narcissism that a group may already possess is likely to be exacerbated during conflict and aggression. And in terms of cultural effects, cultures that place an emphasis on the individual are apparently more likely to see manifestations of perceived individual greatness projected onto social ingroups existing within that culture. Also, and finally, narcissistic groups are not restricted to any one homogenous composition of collective or individually collective or individual narcissists. A quote from Hitler almost ideally sums the actual nature of collective narcissism as it is realistically manifested, and might be found reminiscent of almost every idea presented here: "My group is better and more important than other groups, but still is not worthy of me". Although, this is inconsistent with the interpretation given to collective narcissism by Golec de Zavala and colleagues. Those authors suggest collective narcissists invest their vulnerable self-worth in the exaggerated image of their group and therefore cannot distance themselves from the group through which they achieve self-importance.

Balance of nature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature 

The balance of nature (also known as ecological balance) is a theory that proposes that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium or homeostasis, which is to say that a small change (the size of a particular population, for example) will be corrected by some negative feedback that will bring the parameter back to its original "point of balance" with the rest of the system. The balance is sometimes depicted as easily disturbed and delicate, while other times it is inversely portrayed as powerful enough to correct any imbalances by itself. The theory may apply where populations depend on each other, for example in predator-prey systems, or relationships between herbivores and their food source. It is also sometimes applied to the relationship between the Earth's ecosystem, the composition of the atmosphere, and the world's weather.

The Gaia hypothesis is a controversial hypothesis which asserts that living beings interact with Earth to form a complex system which self-regulates to maintain the balance of nature.

The theory that nature is permanently in balance has been largely discredited by scientists working in ecology, as it has been found that chaotic changes in population levels are common. During the later half of the twentieth century, the "balance" theory was superseded by catastrophe theory and chaos theory. Nevertheless, the idea maintains popularity amongst the general public.

History of the theory

Herodotus commented on the wonderful relationship between predator and prey species

The concept that nature maintains its condition is of ancient provenance; Herodotus commented on the wonderful relationship between predator and prey species, which remained in a steady proportion to one another, with predators never excessively consuming their prey populations. The "balance of nature" concept once ruled ecological research, as well as once governing the management of natural resources. This led to a doctrine popular among some conservationists that nature was best left to its own devices, and that human intervention into it was by definition unacceptable. The validity of a "balance of nature" was already questioned in the early 1900s, but the general abandonment of the theory by scientists working in ecology only happened in the last quarter of that century when studies showed that it did not match what could be observed among plant and animal populations.

Predator-prey interactions

Predator-prey populations tend to show chaotic behavior within limits, where the sizes of populations change in a way that may appear random but is, in fact, obeying deterministic laws based only on the relationship between a population and its food source illustrated by the Lotka–Volterra equation. An experimental example of this was shown in an eight-year study on small Baltic Sea creatures such as plankton, which were isolated from the rest of the ocean. Each member of the food web was shown to take turns multiplying and declining, even though the scientists kept the outside conditions constant. An article in the journal Nature stated: "Advanced mathematical techniques proved the indisputable presence of chaos in this food web ... short-term prediction is possible, but long-term prediction is not."

Human intervention

Although some conservationist organizations argue that human activity is incompatible with a balanced ecosystem, there are numerous examples in history showing that several modern-day habitats originate from human activity: some of Latin America's rain forests owe their existence to humans planting and transplanting them, while the abundance of grazing animals in the Serengeti plain of Africa is thought by some ecologists to be partly due to human-set fires that created savanna habitats.

One of the best-known and often misunderstood examples of ecosystem balance being enhanced by human activity is the Australian Aboriginal practice of "fire-stick farming". This uses low-intensity fire when there is sufficient humidity to limit its action, to reduce the quantity of ground-level combustible material, to lessen the intensity and devastation of forest fires caused by lightning at the end of the dry season. Several plant species are adapted to fire, some even requiring its extreme heat to germinate their seeds.

Continued popularity of the theory

Despite being discredited among ecologists, the theory is widely held to be true by the general public, conservationists and environmentalists, with one author calling it an "enduring myth". Environmental and conservation organizations such as the WWF, Sierra Club and Canadian Wildlife Federation continue to promote the theory, as do animal rights organizations such as PETA.

Kim Cuddington considers the balance of nature to be a "foundational metaphor in ecology", which is still in active use by ecologists. She argues that many ecologists see nature as a "beneficent force" and that they also view the universe as being innately predictable; Cuddington asserts that the balance of nature acts as a "shorthand for the paradigm expressing this worldview".

At least in Midwestern America, the "balance of nature" idea was shown to be widely held by both science majors and the general student population. In a study at the University of Patras, educational sciences students were asked to reason about the future of ecosystems which suffered human-driven disturbances. Subjects agreed that it was very likely for the ecosystems to fully recover their initial state, referring to either a 'recovery process' which restores the initial 'balance', or specific 'recovery mechanisms' as an ecosystem's inherent characteristic. In a 2017 study, Ampatzidis and Ergazaki discuss the learning objectives and design criteria that a learning environment for non-biology major students should meet to support them challenge the "balance of nature" idea. In a 2018 study, the same authors report on the theoretical output of a design research study, which concerns the design of a learning environment for helping students challenge their beliefs regarding the balance of nature and reach an up-to-date understanding about ecosystems' contingency.

In popular culture

The balance of nature (referred to as "the circle of life") is a major theme of the 1994 film, The Lion King. In one scene, the character Mufasa describes to his son Simba how everything exists in a state of delicate balance.

The character Agent Smith, in the 1999 film The Matrix, describes humanity as a virus, claiming that humans fail to reach an equilibrium with their surrounding environment; unlike other mammals.

The titular character of the 2014 film Godzilla fights other sea monsters known as "MUTOs" in a bid to restore the balance of nature.

In the 2018 film, Avengers: Infinity War, the villain Thanos' home planet Titan has been destroyed by the overexploitation of resources, leading him to seek the restoration of balance to the universe by eliminating half of all living beings.

Environmental accounting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_accounting 

Environmental accounting is a subset of accounting proper, its target being to incorporate both economic and environmental information. It can be conducted at the corporate level or at the level of a national economy through the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, a satellite system to the National Accounts of Countries (among other things, the National Accounts produce the estimates of Gross Domestic Product otherwise known as GDP).

Environmental accounting is a field that identifies resource use, measures and communicates costs of a company’s or national economic impact on the environment. Costs include costs to clean up or remediate contaminated sites, environmental fines, penalties and taxes, purchase of pollution prevention technologies and waste management costs.

An environmental accounting system consists of environmentally differentiated conventional accounting and ecological accounting. Environmentally differentiated accounting measures effects of the natural environment on a company in monetary terms. Ecological accounting measures the influence a company has on the environment, but in physical measurements.

Reasons for use

There are several advantages environmental accounting brings to business; notably, the complete costs, including environmental remediation and long term environmental consequences and externalities can be quantified and addressed.

More information about the statistical system of environmental accounts are available here: System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting.

Subfields

Environmental accounting is organized in three sub-disciplines: global, national, and corporate environmental accounting, respectively. Corporate environmental accounting can be further sub-divided into environmental management accounting and environmental financial accounting.

• Global environmental accounting is an accounting methodology that deals areas includes energetics, ecology and economics at a worldwide level.
• National environmental accounting is an accounting approach that deals with economics on a country's level.

Internationally, environmental accounting has been formalised into the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, known as SEEA. SEEA grows out of the System of National Accounts. The SEEA records the flows of raw materials (water, energy, minerals, wood, etc.) from the environment to the economy, the exchanges of these materials within the economy and the returns of wastes and pollutants to the environment. Also recorded are the prices or shadow prices for these materials as are environment protection expenditures. SEEA is used by 49 countries around the world.

• Corporate environmental accounting focuses on the cost structure and environmental performance of a company.
• Environmental management accounting focuses on making internal business strategy decisions. It can be defined as:

"..the identification, collection, analysis, and use of two types of information for internal decision making:

1) Physical information on the use, flows and fates of energy, water and materials (including wastes) and

2) Monetary information on environmentally related costs, earnings and savings."

As part of an environmental management accounting project in the State of Victoria, Australia, four case studies were undertaken in 2002 involving a school (Methodist Ladies College, Perth), plastics manufacturing company (Cormack Manufacturing Pty Ltd, Sydney), provider of office services (a service division of AMP, Australia wide) and wool processing (GH Michell & Sons Pty Ltd, Adelaide). Four major accounting professionals and firms were involved in the project; KPMG (Melbourne), Price Waterhouse Coopers (Sydney), Professor Craig Deegan, RMIT University (Melbourne) and BDO Consultants Pty Ltd (Perth). In February 2003, John Thwaites, The Victorian Minister for the Environment launched the report which summarised the results of the studies.

These studies were supported by the Department of Environment and Heritage of the Australian Federal Government, and appear to have applied some of the principles outlined in the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development publication, Environmental Management Accounting Procedures and Principles (2001).

• Environmental financial accounting is used to provide information needed by external stakeholders on a company’s financial performance. This type of accounting allows companies to prepare financial reports for investors, lenders and other interested parties.

• Certified emission reductions (CERs) accounting comprises the recognition, the non-monetary and monetary evaluation and the monitoring of Certified emission reductions (CERs) and GHGs (greenhouse gases) emissions on all levels of the value chain and the recognition, evaluation and monitoring of the effects of these emissions credits on the carbon cycle of ecosystems. 

Companies specialised in Environmental Accounting

• NEMS AS

Examples of software

• EHS Data's Environmental and Sustainability Accounting and Management System
• Emisoft's Total Environmental Accounting and Management System (TEAMS)
• NEMS's NEMS Accounter

Examples of software as a service

• Greenbase Online Environmental Accountancy

Total cost of ownership

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost_of_ownership 

Total cost of ownership (TCO) is a financial estimate intended to help buyers and owners determine the direct and indirect costs of a product or system. It is a management accounting concept that can be used in full cost accounting or even ecological economics where it includes social costs.

For manufacturing, as TCO is typically compared with doing business overseas, it goes beyond the initial manufacturing cycle time and cost to make parts. TCO includes a variety of cost of doing business items, for example, ship and re-ship, and opportunity costs, while it also considers incentives developed for an alternative approach. Incentives and other variables include tax credits, common language, expedited delivery, and customer-oriented supplier visits.

Use of concept

TCO, when incorporated in any financial benefit analysis, provides a cost basis for determining the total economic value of an investment. Examples include: return on investment, internal rate of return, economic value added, return on information technology, and rapid economic justification.

A TCO analysis includes total cost of acquisition and operating costs, as well as costs related to replacement or upgrades at the end of the life cycle. A TCO analysis is used to gauge the viability of any capital investment. An enterprise may use it as a product/process comparison tool. It is also used by credit markets and financing agencies. TCO directly relates to an enterprise's asset and/or related systems total costs across all projects and processes, thus giving a picture of the profitability over time.

Computer and software industries

TCO analysis was popularized by the Gartner Group in 1987. The roots of this concept date at least back to the first quarter of the twentieth century. Many different methodologies and software tools have been developed to analyze TCO in various operational contexts.

TCO is applied to the analysis of information technology products, seeking to quantify the financial impact of deploying a product over its life cycle. These technologies include software and hardware, and training.

Technology deployment can include the following as part of TCO:

• Computer hardware and programs
  • Network hardware and software
  • Server hardware and software
  • Workstation hardware and software
  • Installation and integration of hardware and software
  • Purchasing research
  • Warranties and licenses
  • License tracking/compliance
  • Migration expenses
  • Risks: susceptibility to vulnerabilities, availability of upgrades, patches and future licensing policies, etc.
• Operation expenses
  • Infrastructure (floor space)
  • Electricity (for related equipment, cooling, backup power)
  • Testing costs
  • Downtime, outage and failure expenses
  • Diminished performance (i.e. users having to wait, diminished money-making ability)
  • Security (including breaches, loss of reputation, recovery and prevention)
  • Backup and recovery process
  • Technology/user training
  • Audit (internal and external)
  • Insurance
  • Information technology personnel
  • Corporate management time
• Long term expenses
  • Replacement
  • Future upgrade or scalability expenses
  • Decommissioning

In the case of comparing TCO of existing versus proposed solutions, consideration should be put toward costs required to maintain the existing solution that may not necessarily be required for a proposed solution. Examples include cost of manual processing that are only required to support lack of existing automation, and extended support personnel.

Facilities and built environment

Total cost of ownership can be applied to the structure and systems of a single building or a campus of buildings. Pioneered by Doug Christensen and the facilities department at Brigham Young University starting in the 1980s, the concept gained more traction in educational facilities in the early 21^st century.

The application of TCO in facilities goes beyond the predictive cost analysis for a new building’s “first cost” (planning, construction and commissioning), to factor in a variety of critical requirements and costs over the life of the building:

• replacement of energy, utility, and safety systems;
• continual maintenance of the building exterior and interior and replacement of materials;
• updates to design and functionality;
• and recapitalization costs.

A key objective of planning, constructing, operating, and managing buildings via TCO principals is for building owners and facility professionals to predict needs and deliver data-driven results.  TCO can be applied any time during the life of a facility asset to manage cost inputs for the life of the structure or system into the future.

Developing standards for TCO in facilities

APPA, an ANSI Accredited Standards Developer, published APPA 1000-1 – Total Cost of Ownership for Facilities Asset Management (TCO) – Part 1: Key Principles as an American National Standard in December 2017. 

APPA 1000-1 provides financial officers, facility professionals, architects, planners, construction workforce, and operations and maintenance (O&M) personnel the foundation of a standardized and holistic approach to implementing TCO key principles. Implementation of TCO key principles can improve decision making, maximizing financial strategies over the life of an asset, starting at the planning and design stage and extends to the end of the asset's life.

APPA 1000-2, slated for publication in 2019, will focus on implementation and application of key TCO principals in facility management.

Transportation industry

The TCO concept is easily applicable to the transportation industry. For example, the TCO defines the cost of owning an automobile from the time of purchase by the owner, through its operation and maintenance to the time it leaves the possession of the owner. Comparative TCO studies between various models help consumers choose a car to fit their needs and budget.

Some of the key elements incorporated in the cost of ownership for a vehicle include:

• Depreciation costs
• Fuel costs
• Insurance
• Financing
• Repairs
• Fees and taxes
• Maintenance costs
• Opportunity costs
• Downtime costs