This has always been the paramount impairment to environmental and social reforms– and the most difficult to counter.
The most workable scheme for alleviating this problem would be for the developed nations to to prohibit importation of materials whose extraction results in such environmental penalties. This can be done through taxation, and punitive action against violators, including those who fabricate science to preserve their profits. This requires more public awareness and education. Articles such as this are helpful but more is needed.

This has always been the paramount impairment to environmental and social reforms– and the most difficult to counter.
The most workable scheme for alleviating this problem would be for the developed nations to to prohibit importation of materials whose extraction results in such environmental penalties. This can be done through taxation, and punitive action against violators, including those who fabricate science to preserve their profits. This requires more public awareness and education. Articles such as this are helpful but more is needed.

Corruption in the developing world? Funny, I thought the article would be about the corruption in the US! After all, the US is the main opponent of action on climate change, the main obstacle to any progress on all fronts, whether environmental, social, peace & justice, and so on. The US is center of corporate power and corruption.

The racism behind corporate expansion, the genocide engendered by it, the stupidity of deciding the corporate being outstrips any alternative, really does need to constantly reiterated, named and addressed in as many different ways and from as many different sources as possible. In the process observations and language emerge and broaden hone and focus and what has long been under erasure emerges in crisp relief.

In indigenous narratives, "the whites [elite identified] oscillate between an equally absolute positivity and negativity. Their gigantic cultural superiority (technical, or objective) is twisted by an infinite social inferiority (ethics, or subjective): they are almost immortal, but are bestial; they are ingenious, but stupid; they write, but forget; produce wonderful objects, but they destroy the world and life" (Viveiros de Castro, 2000, p. 50-51).

This from Graciela Chamorro on when the inclusion of the "other" enters the dialogue. This speaks to critique of Christianity - but can be extrapolated (replacing the word 'religion' with a secular designation of your choice ) to west/globalization and the mindset that 'corrupts' :

'The inclusivist attitude impedes dialogue when it incorporates other religious experiences, and other religious subjects that it considers universal and Christian and when it reduces other ways of knowing to "logic" that is familiar. It understands in this procedure that all religions are, in essence, one "same thing" and that Christianity has the keys to decode "apparent" diversity observed in them and basically converts them to the "same thing" that it bases them on. There is in this attitude a preponderance of the "I" that arrogates the right to speak in the name of "you" through the conceits and language of the first-person. In the words of Carlos Alberto Steil, who reports to Panikkar,

'those who espouse this attitude often see themselves as those who have the privilege of establishing the place that others must occupy in the universe. Or likewise, inclusivism could fall into a sterile relativism to the extent that differences are arranged in a formal and logical structure, which is property of the one who attributes the right to consider the world as a determined totality, where their faith, ideology, intuition or any other name they possess to give, turning into a super-system, capable of encompassing the "inferior" points of view and putting them in their certain places (Steil, 1993, p. 28-29).

Proceeding along this thread, inclusivism is understood as having had, in European culture, a type of "hard core" - which ultimately references the Greco-Western logos with its rationalist categories – that would have to be inculturated in the other cultures (Fornet-Betancourt, 2000, p.55). On the other hand, forgotten in this perspective is that each religion says something distinct from the other and that the manifestation and articulation given by each is essential for the self-understanding of that religion. Or rather, it disregards that religion cannot be stripped of that which it says it is, and it cannot be reduced to a Platonic quintessence in which, supposedly, we all communicate and we make ourselves – or become - intelligible (Panikkar, 1993, p. 22-23). The supposed "dialogue" that is established in this way consists of pinching from another religion those elements that fit into the frame predetermined by Christianity. The interest in what the "other" has to say is restricted to the scope of what is convenient for the confirmation of what is considered "one's own" (proper). It is not the word of the "other" that is heard, but the echo of its own voice. What seems to be a "generous" gesture is merely to give opportunity to the "other" to confirm, with its words, the status quo of its interlocutor."

Send Planned Parenthood!