Does the world have good environmental practices?

Over that past few centuries, the earth has become more and more badly polluted, and the world on the whole has been having poorer and poorer environmental practices. This has contributed to the rise of carbon emissions around the world, as well as the rapid rise in global temperatures in the past few centuries.
Before the mass mechanisation of labour, before the Industrial revolution, and before mankind started their astonishing development and technological advances, the temperature for the first nineteen centuries was rather constant, only fluctuating within a small range of 0.2 degrees Celsius, however, after the end of the nineteenth century, it suddenly shot up by about 1.2 degrees Celsius.
Firstly, looking at the big countries and the different superpowers in the world, we can see how poor the environmental practices of such countries are. If we take a look at China, for example, China’s air pollution in Beijing was so bad that they even had to stop all cars from traveling on the roads for a few months before the Olympic Games, just so that the air would become less polluted. This clearly shows how bad the usual state of pollution the country is in normal cases. Now the Olympic Games is over, China has reverted back to its old ways. Instead of keeping up the good effort that they have been putting in to this Olympic Games, they have let their efforts go to waste. China also has been shown to have one of the highest carbon emission rates in the world.
Another possible case study would be America. America is also another country which is leading in the carbon emission race. Since it was adopted for use in 1997, every single developed country has signed it, with many other developing countries signing it as well, some of them signing it because of America’s influence. However, America itself did not sign the Kyoto protocol as being a capitalistic country, it was unwilling to let these obligations obstruct their inflow of wealth.
Looking at the less developed countries, we can also see some countries like Brazil which have extremely poor environmental practices. Because of the physical and geographical conditions in Brazil, many multi-billion corporations such as MacDonald’s set up branches and farms there. One major problem is cattle grazing, where large plots of land are used to rear cattle. By rearing cattle, the fertile ground gets drained and quickly becomes barren. Thus, these companies start to buy more land and use up more resources. When they run out of land, the start to cut down the Amazon forest, and eat into the land previously occupied by the forest. This not only causes the land to be barren, but also contributes to the deforestation rate. Moreover, cattle tend to give off methane during digestion, which also contributes to global warming as it is a type of greenhouse gas. Despite the pressures that the government faces from environmental groups and other countries around the world, they are unwilling to give up the money that they can earn from selling land to these companies.
Another case study which we can look at is Indonesia. Indonesia usually adopts the slash and burn tactic in order to continue having fertile land for farming. While this may be useful in the short term, it is definitely not beneficial in the long term. Firstly, it depletes the natural resources that the country has and does not fully utilise the resources. Secondly, it leads to a large scale air pollution, as can be witnessed right here from Singapore. Every year, when the forest fires start in Indonesia, Singapore would be adversely affected, despite the large distance between Indonesia and Singapore. The air in Singapore would become very hazy and polluted, and this situation would usually stay for about a month or so.
Thus, I can safely conclude that most countries on the whole generally do not have good environmental practices. While many of these countries have come up with brilliant plans, it is rare to find one that is really put into action instead of just hearing the governments speak about them.

Democracy-does it create stability?

I feel that democracy can contribute to economic stability. One important factor in economic stability is the diversity of the different types of trade available. Thus, having more kinds of trade in more areas definitely leads to more economic stability. Being democratic, the country's economic policies would usually be largely affected by the people, who would also very likely be influenced by the outside world. Local businessmen and investors would be especially much affected by the foreign economy, and since the decisions that the government would make would be in line with that of the people's, the government would very likely promote many different kinds of trade and welcome foreign trade. This could diversify trade in the country, making its economy less susceptible to economic downturns as a single economic crash in one field would not affect those in other fields, and allow the economy of the country to sustain its stability and have time to recover.

Political stability can also be brought about when democracy exists in the country. In the case of an authoritarian or a dictatorship, it is very likely that the masses are unhappy with the government policies. This would cause them to be unwilling to obey the government and in some more extreme cases, even rebel against the government and riot. In such scenarios, the country would not be peaceful at all, let alone politically stable. However, in a democratic country, since the government is voted in by the people, it is very likely that the government is supported by the people, thus, the problem of people disobeying the government should not be so large a problem.

Going back to my previous point on economic stability, the political stability caused by the implementation of democracy is also one of the causes of the economic stability which exists in these democratic countries. When a country is more stable, it is natural that foreign investors would want to invest in the country as there is a good chance that they can make money. Also, since the country is stable, it is more likely that investors would stay on even when they meet some difficulties as they trust the economic in that country.

However, like any other political ideologies or systems, democracy also has its flaws. Democracy works extremely well in most situations, but under the extremely common assumption that the majority is always right. For instance, in situations where the majority of the population is uneducated, the worse, corrupt parties may end up winning elections by offering bribes to the people. Being uneducated and unaware of what is good for the country, it is very likely that the people would accept the bribes by the political party and vote it in. Being the minority, the educated people who know what is good for the country would not be able to choose a good government. Moreover, in the case of democracy, the voice of the minority would not be heard. Yes, they would be allowed to show their views and opinions on different issues, but regardless of what they say or think, it would not make much of a difference since they would be overwhelmed by the majority anyway.

In conclusion, Democracy works like a double-edged sword, yes; it can create stability in many areas, but can also cause unrest.

Teenage Drinking

Over the past few years, the different governments all around the world have been putting in a lot of effort in trying to stop teenagers from drinking. An increasing amount of effort has been shown in trying to solve this problem. For instance, the advertisements for alcoholic drinks in some countries are now have more stringent requirements than before. However, the results are not as positive as would be expected for the amount of time and effort invested in such issues. 

I feel that one of the main causes of this problem is the environment that many of the children nowadays grow up in. They grow up in an environment which causes them to succumb to peer pressure.  For instance, they may feel left out when a whole group of their friends drink alcohol and they don't. This would cause them to want to drink alcohol as well for the sake of being accepted into the group of friends.

Moreover, there are many parents who think that it is alright for teenagers to drink alcohol. some of them are alcohol addicts who do not believe that alcohol is bad. Others either haven't been directly affected by the devastating effects of alcohol or do not have family members or love ones who have suffered because of alcohol. Thus, they may never understand the effects that alcohol would have on their body. On top of that, many parents also are unaware of their children's' social life and in a way, may end up neglecting them. Also most of the teenagers parents grew up in the 70's and it was never impressed upon them that they should not take alcohol because they are young. This would cause many current day parents to allow their children to drink alcoholic drinks.

Another factor which fuels drinking in teenagers is the availability of alcopops, which are sweet, flavoured alcoholic drinks that are readily available in many convenience shops. Studies show that a large number of children aged 13 to 16 are attracted to the idea of these "alcopops".

The main problem with teenage drinking is the problem which alcohol pose on their developing bodies. Compared to the damage that alcohol does on an adult's body, the damage which is done on teenagers' still developing body is much greater. Also, if they get addicted to alcohol at such a young age, then the amount of alcohol that the body would have taken in when they reach adulthood would hit exceedingly high amounts.

I really hope that more effort can be put into helping to stop this alarming trend of teenage drinking. I think that one of the most important things that can be done is for the children to be educated since young. this would definitely leave a much more lasting impression on the children, and would definitely help to reduces the number of teenage drinkers.

Teenage Drinking

BBC news