Environmental sustainability

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges humanity faces.
There is a scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up and humans are the ones causing it. Damages are obvious in the North Pole, where the Ice cap is melting, leaving polar bears or other animals without any sustainable habitat. If policies are not pushed to curb climate change its effects could become irreversible.

Of course, it might tempting to think that climate change won't change anything to our lives. For those beach and sun lovers out there, it might even make their lives better. Yet what people ignore is that climate change can destroy many animal lives, making some of them even extinct. This then would has serious consequences on the biosphere, and the ecological system as a whole.
Experts agree that viruses like Covid19 are a consequence of climate change, and predict that the number of Covids will increase as more and more animal species become extinct.

Wildfires like the ones that recently took place in Los Angeles will also become the norm, not the exception.
So what will the future look like once we have gotten rid of all animals like that the ones that are vital so vital our ecosystem?
One could imagine a future where the Earth would become uninhabitable and only the super rich go to live on Mars.
It has been decades that some cities in China have become uninhabitable, people can’t walk the streets without wearing a mask. Pollution like this causes serious health problem, cancer being of them.
This raises an important point issue, even though global warming is a global phonenom, some cities are more polluted than others because the pollution doesn't travel away fast enough from those areas.
Data shows that those who are poorer are more at risk of the consequences of climate change. Which makes sense since the rich live in smart cities and smart neighborhood and have better access to health care.
The only sustainable solution is to come up with engineering responses, but as previously mentioned natures makes it so that only the super-rich would get access to it.

Governments could also try to tax the rich to build sustainable engineering solutions and build better cities and means of transportation, but the rich are unlikely to agree with that and would just move to another country.
In other words, ideally the government makes the poor pay for the rich while fooling everyone in the process that it is caring for everyone’s health and well-being.
Realistically, however, the money governments use come from taxing the rich who are unlikely to let their pockets be emptied.
In the real world, the super-rich send their children to the best schools, the best doctors and the best hospitals and the governments do everything to keep them happy. This is what is happening in Singapore where there is a tremendous tax-relief to attract the rich.
You might think then countries will try to compete to act the richest and their best talents. Some countries already thought about it and make it almost illegal for most people to flee their country from tax-reasons. Some countries United States can tax its citizens even if they live in another country. Many similar countries such as France have similar policies to force the rich to still pay taxes. In practice, the rich know the law of how the protect themselves, though governments try to pray on ignorance. France has found a way to attract American citizen living to live in the US to pay less taxes. Basically, the French offer access to citizenship to American citizens evading taxes as well as significant tax reduction!!!
I remember having seen a targeted add on a website offering French citizenship with tax relief. The website must have thought from some reason that I was an American citizen with a lot of money.
It is not clear how the US responds from those tactics used by other nations to get their tax-payers money. The US most likely reciprocates those hits.
The real question isn’t what steps the government should take to promote environmental sustainability. Environment sustainability is what engineers’ study to make money and make the world a better place. But it is the rich who rip all the benefits living in futuristic cities with flying cars and no pollution.

As far as individuals are concerned, I believe there is little difference they can make. Sure, we can save water, reduce energy waste, use the subway but eventually governments need to make policies (people can’t take the subway if it doesn’t exist in some places the first place) to change people’s habit through laws or by any other mean.
In France, you could get fines for not sorting your trash properly. Most countries have taxes to curb car pollutions.
While there are some initiatives governments can take, as I previously mentioned the future will probably one where the super-rich live higher quality of lives, while the poor are plagued by diseases and a lower standard of living.
People should help each other to make the world better and not crush another. It raises a question of morality.
But morality misses the point. Poverty is like a plague and normal people want to do everything they can to get out of it. Saving yourself from it isn’t a question of bad or wrong but a question of survival.
If the rich want to buy their way out to Mars after we are done killing the planet while they are too many people living on welfare, benefits and catching diseases and being killed by earthquakes.
It is true that some countries are richer than others their citizens more valuables than citizens from other parts of the world, and money is power.
The Japanese massively invested in infrastructure the protect themselves from earthquakes. Poor countries have their citizens wiped out and only get a sob story on the news.

It might sound as an old cliché but money rules the world. It is also a big mistake to underestimate the power of money. Money is what makes anything possible.
The rich live better lives, go to the best schools, live longer, get the best doctors and go even to heaven thanks to the power of money.
Environmental sustainability will make life better and eventually create better neighborhoods, better cities and better air-quality. However, I do believe only the super-rich will benefit from it while the poor will live under difficult living condition like we have seen recently in Thailand. The poor in highly developed countries where the state takes good care of its citizens as may live a better and live in sustainable city.
However, I have seen that isn’t the case.
France for instance has implemented sustainable projects in low-income neighborhood to improve the quality of life of their citizens. But more recently they have been filled with migrants. Green spaces
have been turned into camps for migrants and diseases have spread as well as feelings of insecurity.
In other words, what once started as a sustainable project has now become a living nightmare for many French citizens.
So, what should people facing those challenges do?
The solution is for those who have money to leave and move to better neighborhood where they will pay taxes to afford better security.
This example seems so innocent, but it proves my previous point exactly. Those who have money can afford better lives and better neighborhoods.

Why are politicians so complacent with these problems then?
Again, money.
There are many reasons why politicians act the way they do.
They do not want to compete against the private sector which fund their campaigns. If mayors for instance provided too many good services for their citizens, the private sector would go bankrupt. Left-wing politicians also have an incentive to bring in migrants to vote for them as the rich tend to vote for the right which give them tax-cuts and takes care of their needs.

In other words, the steps that governments and individuals can take to promote environmental sustainability are clear, engineering solutions such as smart cities, electric cars, sustainable housing and money other have already been put place or can be put in place.
In fact, humanity doesn't even have a problem going to Mars and colonising.
The big question then is how much money do we want invested and who should benefit from it. What inequality will these projects really create as it is more likely that it will help the rich upgrade their lifestyle? Is it morally wrong for the super rich to live better life and the poor to live miserably?