Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, And The Empire Of Capital By George A. Gonzalez Book Review Examples

In the book, Urban Sprawl, Global warming, and the Empire of Capital, Gonzalez places all the faults on the Government and American business leaders. He says that they are responsible for the global climate change. He opposed all the efforts used in the account of global warming problem. The definition and explanation were based on transnational factors such as the greenhouse effect. The core researchers expounded and affirmed that global climatic change was due to economic transition and development. They also argued that it was due to enter border development of goods and services. Others argued the global climatic change was due to flow of capital within borders. In his argument, he pushes forward and exclaims that global warming was due to World War II. He argues that the U.S.A post World War 2 was the main catalyst of the world experiencing warmer temperatures. He points out that the cause of sea raising its level was due to climatic change. All these resulted from the auto depletion of the important ozone layer by the fumes from the combustion of engines and local motives in the United States. The campaign was supported by the urban sprawl and the capitalist groups. According to him, the sprawl motivated population to be the motor infatuated, motivated urbanization and industrialization among the Americans. All these bunched together promoted massive emission of greenhouse gases that play an important role in changing the climatic patterns. Gonzalez was a brave author who came up to challenge the government's position to right the environment. I support his overall idea of critically thinking beyond the state pretences.
He places all the blame to the state elites and American businesses that had the responsibility and authority to put across policies guarding oil, home ownership, marketing strategies and highway construction. Gonzalez argues that the above factors that were not looked into promoted consumerism, industrialization and suburbanization in America. Gonzalez may be right in his argument as the industrialization has led to the production of hazardous waste that depletes the ozone layer. When ozone layer is depleted, it exposes the earth with the ultraviolet rays. The rays lead to change in climate prompting high temperatures on both the earth and the sea. The result a rise in sea levels and submergence of other land in the sea. Similarly, I support his argument about the World War II increased global warming, because the weaponry applied in the war was so intensive that they produced atmospheric degrading gases. The main degrading gases include Chlorine and bromine. They deplete the ozone layer exposing the earth directly with ultraviolet rays that I discussed above. His argument is valid as far as ozone and climatic changes are concerned. Secondly, Gonzalez ties his study of the Urban Sprawling in the American landscape. The study is around the major importance of elites in economics and national capitalist in building their national and global economy. I believe that Gonzalez made a very good analysis in considering the role of economists and national capitalists because they are the main drivers of our economy. They, therefore, have the power to destroy or build the environment. He describes them as state imperatives in economy building. He framed it to "The Empire of capital." In his statement, he recognizes the role of the national elites in building the United States oil policy. He describes how the national elites pushed for the policies to ensure that the oil products were available in the market. Though, he concludes his statement by indicating that they never considered the conditions in any part of the policy. Environment was so strained that the overall climate changed eventually. This lead to total global climate overturn as no one took responsibility of it. According to this statement, Gonzalez tried to support the idea the national elites thinking that they would impact on the environment. He thought that by supporting the stabilization of the national oil policy they would factor out an environment conservation/ consideration icon. "The empire of the capital" an icon name for the economist and capitalist in the American territory.He aimed at them as he thought they had the power to decide on environment policy as they worked on the oil policy. That is the reason he included them in an argument. Gonzalez also highlights that the United States effort to prevent and reduce global climate will never be sustainable. In his argument, he talks of the tie between the economists and the capitalist. Each party is fighting for the benefit of its followers. Though the political shield is interdependent of the two parties. There is no hope in reduction and sustainability of the global warming issues. He argues that the reason behind the failure is that all the bodies responsible in environmental conservation take the issue too lightly framing it in a business friendly manner. Meaning that no policy would be a raised that would affect business transactions. Basing the arguments, I think he was right to explore the policy makers and seen that they had no positive attention for the environment. Therefore, he investigated on both the policy makers and policy implementers; he came with the conclusion that they were disenfranchised who never thought of the environment. According to him, the business elites commonly referred to as the "eco-modernist" only twisted the problem so that it would favor their business world. For instance, he argues that focused in developing alternative technologies by upgrading the fossil technologies but never considered any environmental icon or policy. He argues that the only predicted time when climate would be considered was in the twenty-first century. In the context, he argues that some policies blocked the grant regulations. This opened channels and empowered the policy makers throughout the cold and world war II.
The overall result was that the environmental efficiency and conservation were discouraged and disintegrated to zero. Similarly, he seen that neither rules nor control was placed to guard the environment against pollution. In his view, they were just concerned in gaining profit and maximizing the wealth of the state. Gonzalez failed to some point in his argument; he never considered the non-sprawl factors. The factors enormously contributed to changing in environmental climate. For instance, he never considered the pollution that resulted from transportation of the goods that are shipped to the United States using fossil ships. They produce much smoke that pollutes the environment. The smoke contains methane that is ozone depleting substances. Thus, causing a change in climate, temperature and rise in sea level. Similarly, on this he never considered the consumer patterns and culture. The core motivator to these changes was consumer culture. Consumer culture had changed due to service production and lifestyle change. The sudden obsession in cars was one such change. This has promoted the use of pesticides, sprays, freezers and refrigerators which lead to environmental pollution promoting global warming due to depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer.
Similarly, he argues that the United States is only committed to globalization. Mainly it aims at global capitalism. He argues that the United States government only focuses on energy intensive mode of development. In his argument, he states that the land policies that the United States government adopts only accelerates climate change. He argues the state is not concerned with the rate of climate change. He states the government stressed more on economic and political interests without having any environmental regulation. He suggested that the government should have climate control boards that should regulate consumption of products that emit greenhouse gasses. In his statement and argument he tries to show the government's negligence and irresponsibility as the only consider economic and political matters.In his book, chapter three to five gives a clear historical analysis. He offers clear accounts of how the sprawl was spread throughout the country. He explains the consequences of the sprawl to the policy of oil in the United States. Gonzalez argues that United States placed a high priority on petroleum security than any other course. In this Gonzalez tries to show how the government was unconcerned with climate change. Their only worry was on how petroleum would be traded between US state and the Iraq nations. He also argues that managerial players on the climate change were weak and unplanned. All the economic and political drivers were all leading to environment degradation. They were all aiming and polishing business empowerment and downsizing of all the environment concerns as they would limit the business. The author tries to explain why the climate changed drastically without any block. The reason behind is that all the powerbrokers were concerned with business upgrade and placed less or no interest as far as business is concerned. In the part, we are shown by the author that they traded on bio fossils that are well known of polluting the environment.
I commend and support the author further for his work since he comes up with suggestions of ways to curb environmental degradation. Such efforts should come from the general and gain support from the state in the form of funding and favorable legislation. The state had very weak and nonfunctional ecological modernization model. The environmental policy community was a non-starter according to Gonzalez. He confirms that neither technology nor mechanism has been set forth to efficiently answer questions regarding climate change. He argues that this was brought about by the global capitalism. Global capitalism ensures that consumption and economic growth proceed with climate change consideration. Specifically between page ninety six and one hundred and one he suggests a way out. He argues that all the environmental groups should permanently withdraw from the current policy making process. He continues to argue that the environmental groups should be the ones responsible in protecting and conserving the environment. He suggests that the groups should create social movements. The movement should challenge and monitor the urban sprawl, dependence of the automobiles and use of bio fossils. They should support and develop a climate change policies that guard the country from global warming.
Gonzalez, finally points out that the problem of global warming will never leave the United States of America. He argues that the decision and ruling of the country are influenced by the wealthy tycoons who are involved in the fossil fuels. He shows how the urban sprawl and empire of the capital has influenced global warming. Global warming is sidelined due to the high economic and political influence. Everyone works for himself. He provides a clear analysis and research on the theorists of public policy. He tries to show how the public interests should be incorporated in decision making. In so doing, the environment factor will be submerged into the policy making highlights. Environmental requirements would be considered anytime the proprietors are working out their business. He argues that United States government is reluctant in working out global warming as the Americans relies on the urban sprawl. That's why American will continue experiencing global warming.
The urban sprawl is described by Gonzalez as the main source of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a gas produced when the fossil fuel is heated when producing energy to maintain both the houses and the running engines. Carbon dioxide has been identified as an important cause of global warming. He argues that the lack of democracy in the United States has also promoted global warming. He argues that the only step solution to the problem of global warming world is democratization of the political institution. This would allow easy sharing of environment information. Such a move would allow assessment of these programmes. According to Gonzalez consideration of environment policies, would promote reduced climate variation and, therefore, reduce global warming.I support Gonzalez argument, as the only way forward in pushing the environment issue is by using the political platform. This is because the business elites can no longer support the environmental issues since they will begin focusing on the damage caused by fossil fuels when its use is burnt or controlled. Political platform will be a great avenue as it will not be affected by any policy passed regarding any environmental regulation. To some point, Gonzalez argues that if only a coalition is not found between the entire policy makers panel, global warming will never reduce. He argues that if only the government takes the initiative to join up all the bodies and a humanity consideration, Global warming will never go down. Though urbanization has already been established, Gonzalez points out that a consideration of their health is a crucial matter in the nation's economy. He suggests that all the people involved should be considered when formulating policies on the environment. Eventually, he calls for a close check on the fuels, automobile culture and housing styles. He suggests and argues that if these are looked into, the problem of global warming will be history to the United States.
Lastly, Gonzalez argues that to correct the mess a close examination must be done. This analysis should focus on urban growth and the impacts it has on the landscape. In addition, he argues that the energy security should look forward and examine the pursuit of energy in the United States. He says that if only emission of carbon dioxide is reduced global warming will never seize in the United States.
This book is an important piece in analyzing the contributions of the different sectors of the economy towards environmental pollution and global warming. The author is not shy to challenge the major environment pollution sectors. He clearly outlines the role that the government, economists, politicians, private sector have towards global warming. The author critically analyses issues like urbanization and its contribution to global warming. Overall the author has succeeded in pointing out the major environmental defaulters. He does not stop at that; he further lays down important information on how to reduce pollution in the age of urban sprawl. I would suggest this piece to the people concerned with environmental recovery, policy makers, students and professional in the environmental studies field.