Wall-E<\/em> and it's cute protagonist robot, offers a surprisingly insightful case study for this chapter. On the surface, it\u2019s an adorable animated film about a lonely robot cleaning up trash. But dig deeper, and you\u2019ll find a story that critiques overconsumption, climate neglect, and humanity\u2019s disconnection from nature. Through the dystopian ruins of Earth, Wall-E<\/em> shows us the consequences of ignoring sustainability and the promise of hope if we act in time. Plus, it\u2019s a lot easier to talk about environmental politics with a trash-compacting robot as your guide\u2014because who better to show us what happens when we let things pile up, literally and politically? So grab your recycling bin and get ready to dive into concepts like renewable energy, degrowth, and international treaties. After all, if we don\u2019t learn from Wall-E<\/em>, we might just end up needing a spaceship of our own\u2014and unfortunately, ours won\u2019t come with a cute robot.<\/p>\r\n SPOILER WARNING<\/strong>: This chapter will reference specific characters and events from the film Wall-E<\/em>, some of which may spoil major plot points. If you would like to watch the film before you continue, I highly recommend it. HCC students can watch the film for free through our library's Swank account here: Wall-E<\/em> (2008)<\/a> Not an HCC student? Check your streaming platforms or local library for access!<\/p>\r\n\r\n Environmental politics and sustainability are at the heart of some of the most pressing challenges humanity faces today. From rising global temperatures to shrinking rainforests, the relationship between political decision-making and environmental protection has never been more critical. These issues transcend science\u2014they are inherently political, involving debates about resources, power, responsibility, and justice. At their core, environmental politics seek to address how nations, corporations, and individuals share the burden of environmental protection and how governance structures can create pathways toward sustainable living. The stakes couldn\u2019t be higher: with ecosystems collapsing and global temperatures rising, the decisions made today will determine the future of life on Earth. To better understand these challenges, we\u2019ll analyze real-world examples alongside the animated film Wall-E<\/em>, a deceptively lighthearted story that reveals the consequences of environmental neglect, rampant consumerism, and the failure to act collectively. By linking these themes to core international relations (IR) concepts, we can explore not only what went wrong but also how humanity might chart a more sustainable course.<\/p>\r\n Released in 2008, Wall-E<\/em> is a dystopian animated film that offers a stark portrayal of a future Earth rendered uninhabitable by environmental neglect and overconsumption. The planet is abandoned, covered in towering heaps of trash and devoid of plant and animal life, while humans have fled to space, living on a spaceship called the Axiom. The story follows Wall-E, a lonely trash-compacting robot who diligently cleans up humanity\u2019s mess, and Eve, a sleek reconnaissance robot sent to determine whether Earth is capable of sustaining life again. The film\u2019s narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of failing to address environmental degradation and unchecked consumerism. Through its imaginative yet harrowing depiction of a ruined Earth, Wall-E<\/em> explores fundamental questions about humanity\u2019s responsibility to the planet and the political and economic systems that perpetuate environmental harm. As we unpack key concepts like environmental degradation, consumerism, and ecological collapse, we\u2019ll use the film to connect these ideas to international relations and global sustainability efforts, illustrating how political systems shape environmental outcomes. Check out the clip below to see the directive that kept humans in space, away from an environmentally destroyed Earth (caution: spoilers!).<\/p>\r\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=IJWc4PD317w\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"30\"]\r\n [pb_glossary id=\"457\"]Environmental degradation<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] is one of the film\u2019s central themes, illustrating the cumulative damage that results from unsustainable practices over time. In political science, environmental degradation refers to the deterioration of natural ecosystems through pollution, resource depletion, and habitat destruction. In Wall-E<\/em>, Earth\u2019s surface is unrecognizable, covered in waste and smog, with no signs of viable ecosystems left. This fictional setting mirrors real-world phenomena, such as deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, which contributes to biodiversity loss, disrupts carbon cycles, and accelerates climate change. Another example is the widespread pollution of oceans by plastics, which forms massive floating garbage patches and harms marine ecosystems. The film portrays this environmental breakdown as the result of decades of neglect, mirroring real-world patterns in which governments, corporations, and consumers fail to take action despite clear warning signs. In international relations, addressing environmental degradation requires cooperation among states, but this is often hindered by competing national interests and short-term economic priorities. For instance, debates over climate responsibility between developed and developing nations have stalled progress in global agreements like the Kyoto Protocol. By showing the long-term consequences of inaction, Wall-E<\/em> highlights the need for forward-thinking policies and collective responsibility, both domestically and internationally, to prevent irreversible damage.<\/p>\r\n Our desire for more\u2014more stuff, more convenience, more comfort\u2014may offer short-term satisfaction, but it comes with long-term consequences we can no longer ignore. [pb_glossary id=\"458\"]Consumerism<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary], another critical theme in Wall-E<\/em>, is portrayed as a driving force behind environmental destruction. Consumerism refers to the cultural emphasis on acquiring and consuming goods, often to excess, at the expense of sustainability. In the film, the remnants of consumer culture are everywhere: advertisements still flash on abandoned buildings, and Earth itself is buried under the waste created by centuries of overproduction and overconsumption. This is not far from reality, where modern consumer culture encourages disposable goods and unsustainable lifestyles. The global fashion industry, for example, is one of the largest contributors to waste and pollution, producing cheap, short-lived products that fill landfills and pollute waterways. Politically, consumerism is reinforced by economic systems that prioritize growth over sustainability, and international trade agreements that facilitate the movement of goods often overlook environmental costs. In international relations, addressing the environmental impacts of consumerism requires shifting economic models toward sustainability, such as adopting a \"circular economy\" that minimizes waste by emphasizing reuse, recycling, and renewable resources. Wall-E<\/em> uses its vivid imagery of waste-filled landscapes to critique this \"throwaway culture\" and challenge viewers to rethink consumption patterns. Moreover, the film\u2019s depiction of humans on the Axiom, reliant on machines for even the smallest tasks, underscores the broader implications of consumerism: societal stagnation and environmental ruin. At the heart of this environmental collapse lies a deeper driver\u2014unchecked consumerism\u2014which the film critiques through its portrayal of mass consumption, waste, and the corporate culture that encourages both.<\/p>\r\n When environmental degradation and consumerism reach their breaking point, they can lead to [pb_glossary id=\"459\"]ecological collapse<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary]\u2014the total breakdown of ecosystems, rendering them unable to sustain life. In Wall-E<\/em>, this collapse is evident in the complete absence of plant life on Earth, leaving it barren and uninhabitable. This parallels real-world crises such as coral reef bleaching, where rising ocean temperatures and pollution cause the collapse of marine ecosystems that support millions of species. Similarly, desertification in regions like the Sahel in Africa transforms fertile land into deserts, displacing millions and exacerbating resource conflicts. These collapses are often the result of unsustainable human activities, such as deforestation, overfishing, and fossil fuel emissions, compounded by weak environmental governance. In international relations, preventing ecological collapse requires coordinated global efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to 1.5\u00b0C. However, the effectiveness of these agreements often depends on the willingness of nations to make sacrifices for the greater good. Wall-E<\/em> dramatizes this challenge, showing a world where the failure to act has led to a catastrophic loss of biodiversity, urging viewers to consider the long-term consequences of ecological neglect.<\/p>\r\n Through the lens of Wall-E<\/em>, we can better understand the interconnectedness of environmental degradation, consumerism, and ecological collapse. Each concept builds upon the others, illustrating the systemic nature of environmental problems and the need for comprehensive political solutions. The film\u2019s bleak depiction of a ruined Earth serves as both a warning and a call to action, emphasizing the importance of international cooperation, sustainable policies, and individual responsibility. As we explore these issues in greater depth, we are reminded that the future is not yet written. With the right political frameworks and collective willpower, humanity can address the root causes of environmental harm and work toward a more sustainable and equitable world.<\/p>\r\n\r\n When the weather starts making headlines more than celebrities, you know something big is happening. Few issues demonstrate the intersection of politics and science as vividly as [pb_glossary id=\"460\"]climate change[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>. Climate change refers to long-term alterations in global temperatures and weather patterns, largely driven by the buildup of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. The consequences include rising sea levels, intensified natural disasters, and widespread disruption to ecosystems and food systems. But this isn\u2019t just a scientific crisis\u2014it\u2019s a political one. Addressing it requires coordinated global action, balancing national interests, corporate accountability, and the need for sustainable lifestyles to achieve fair and effective solutions. Addressing these problems involves balancing economic priorities with the pressing need to protect the environment, all while navigating issues of fairness and accountability. Continuing our use of the animated film Wall-E, <\/em>we see that it\u00a0provides a vivid illustration of what happens when environmental neglect goes unchecked. It portrays a future Earth overwhelmed by pollution and climate collapse, reflecting the dangers of failing to act. By examining key concepts like climate change, environmental stewardship, pollution, and carbon emissions, we can understand the complexities of these challenges and explore solutions like cap-and-trade systems and environmental justice movements. These ideas are central to international relations, as they reveal how global actors respond to shared crises that know no borders.<\/p>\r\n The world\u2019s climate has always been dynamic, but today\u2019s changes are happening at a pace and scale that are unprecedented in human history. Rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, and more frequent extreme weather events are symptoms of a changing climate driven primarily by human activities such as burning fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, and deforestation. These changes are not just environmental\u2014they have profound social, economic, and political impacts. For example, entire island nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives face existential threats from rising sea levels, which could displace their populations entirely. Politically, climate change has become a key battleground, with nations debating who is responsible and who should pay for mitigation and adaptation efforts. Agreements like the Paris Agreement represent international attempts to address the crisis, but their success depends on nations honoring their commitments, which is far from guaranteed. Check out the video below for some hope that \"We WILL Fix Climate Change.\" In Wall-E<\/em>, the consequences of ignoring these warnings are vividly depicted: Earth is no longer habitable due to unchecked environmental damage. This stark imagery reminds us that climate change is not a distant problem but an urgent one, requiring immediate and sustained action. Yet action is only possible with a sense of responsibility and commitment to environmental stewardship.<\/p>\r\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw\r\n Caring for the planet isn\u2019t just a scientific or economic obligation; it\u2019s a moral one. [pb_glossary id=\"461\"]Environmental stewardship<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] emphasizes the responsible management of natural resources to ensure the environment's health and sustainability for future generations. Nations like Costa Rica have become global leaders in stewardship, achieving nearly 99% renewable energy usage and reversing deforestation through extensive reforestation efforts. In Wall-E<\/em>, stewardship is represented symbolically by the fragile green plant that Wall-E finds and protects, which eventually becomes a beacon of hope for humanity\u2019s return to Earth. However, achieving true stewardship requires confronting the power dynamics between corporations and consumers. Large companies, driven by profit, often market products in ways that encourage constant consumption while discouraging critical thought about sustainability\u2014convincing consumers that convenience and wastefulness are normal. In Wall-E<\/em>, this is evident in how Buy-N-Large dominates every aspect of human life, keeping people passive, distracted, and reliant on an unsustainable system. This concept also speaks to the need for systemic changes, such as transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy and designing cities with sustainability in mind. Stewardship is not only about managing resources but also about fostering a mindset of care and accountability, which extends to addressing the root causes of environmental degradation, such as pollution. To truly be stewards of the planet, societies must confront the pervasive issue of pollution and its wide-reaching effects.<\/p>\r\n It\u2019s hard to miss the visual impact of pollution in Wall-E<\/em>. The mountains of waste that Wall-E compresses reflect the unchecked growth of garbage and toxic waste that defines Earth\u2019s ruined landscape. [pb_glossary id=\"462\"]Pollution[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong> occurs when harmful substances are introduced into the environment, contaminating air, water, and land. Real-world examples are equally alarming: smog-filled skies in cities like Beijing and Delhi have led to severe public health crises, while industrial pollutants in water supplies, like those in Flint, Michigan, have disproportionately harmed marginalized communities. Politically, pollution often creates conflict as governments wrestle with enforcing regulations while balancing economic growth. Industries push back against strict pollution controls, citing costs, while activists and communities demand accountability. The growing problem of microplastics in oceans illustrates how pollution is a global challenge that requires transnational cooperation, as no single country can address such widespread contamination alone. In Wall-E<\/em>, the accumulation of waste becomes a physical representation of society\u2019s failure to prioritize sustainability. Addressing pollution is directly linked to reducing the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change, demonstrating how interconnected these issues are.<\/p>\r\n Every time a car engine roars to life, a plane takes off, or a factory chimney releases smoke, carbon dioxide (CO\u2082) and other greenhouse gases<\/strong> (GHGs) are released into the atmosphere. These gases\u2014including methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases\u2014act like an invisible blanket around the Earth, trapping heat that would otherwise escape into space. This process, known as the greenhouse effect, is natural and necessary to keep the planet warm enough to support life. However, human activity\u2014especially the large-scale burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas\u2014has dramatically increased the concentration of these gases, particularly CO\u2082, upsetting the Earth\u2019s energy balance. As more heat is trapped, global temperatures rise, triggering a chain reaction of environmental shifts: melting ice caps, rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, and more frequent extreme weather events. This warming trend is what we refer to as global warming, and over time, it contributes to the broader, long-term phenomenon of climate change.<\/p>\r\n Because carbon dioxide is the most abundant and long-lasting greenhouse gas produced by human activity, carbon dihas become the primary target in climate mitigation efforts. Policies like carbon taxes, renewable energy subsidies, and emissions regulations aim to reduce CO\u2082 output by discouraging fossil fuel use and promoting cleaner alternatives. For instance, countries like Sweden have implemented effective carbon taxes, prompting industries to invest in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies, while [pb_glossary id=\"1271\"]greenhouse gases[\/pb_glossary]also increasing public support for sustainability. However, efforts to reduce emissions often face political and economic resistance\u2014especially in nations whose economies are heavily dependent on fossil fuel extraction and export. International frameworks such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement attempt to coordinate global action by setting emissions targets and encouraging cooperation, but their success hinges on enforcement, transparency, and the willingness of nations to prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term gain. In this context, cap-and-trade systems have emerged as a market-based solution, allowing countries or companies to buy and sell emissions allowances as a way to incentivize gradual reductions. While no single policy is a silver bullet, combining scientific understanding with economic tools and international cooperation remains essential in the global fight against climate change.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_686\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"335\"] One innovative policy to reduce emissions is [pb_glossary id=\"464\"]cap-and-trade<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary], which sets a legal limit on emissions and allows companies to buy and sell pollution credits. This approach incentivizes companies to reduce emissions, as unused credits can be sold for profit. For example, the European Union\u2019s Emissions Trading System has been effective in reducing emissions while encouraging technological innovation. However, cap-and-trade policies have their challenges, such as ensuring that the system doesn\u2019t disproportionately burden low-income communities or developing nations. Critics argue that wealthier countries and corporations may use the system to \"buy\" their way out of responsibility, continuing to pollute while shifting the burden onto others. This concern ties into the broader movement for environmental justice, which demands equitable solutions that prioritize the needs of marginalized communities.<\/p>\r\n When it comes to environmental destruction, not everyone suffers equally\u2014some communities are hit first, hardest, and longest. The principle of [pb_glossary id=\"465\"]environmental justice<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] demands that all people, regardless of race, income, or nationality, be treated fairly in efforts to prevent and respond to environmental harm. Yet historically, marginalized communities\u2014particularly low-income populations, Indigenous groups, and communities of color\u2014have disproportionately borne the brunt of environmental degradation. This is not accidental; it's the result of systemic inequalities, where those with less political power and fewer economic resources are more likely to live near hazardous waste sites, polluted industrial zones, or degraded ecosystems. The Flint water crisis exemplifies this injustice: predominantly Black and working-class residents were exposed to contaminated water for years, while officials delayed action and denied responsibility. Similar patterns are seen globally, from oil spills on Indigenous lands in the Amazon to rising sea levels that threaten low-lying island nations with few resources to adapt.<\/p>\r\n Even science fiction like Wall-E subtly reflects these realities. While the film shows humanity evacuated to the spaceship Axiom after Earth becomes uninhabitable, it\u2019s never explained who didn\u2019t make it onboard. Given the real-world tendency for wealth and privilege to determine access to safety during crises, it\u2019s likely that the most vulnerable were left behind\u2014those without the means to escape. This silent omission mirrors the way environmental collapse often leaves behind the poor and powerless while the wealthy shield themselves from the worst impacts. The concept of environmental justice reminds us that climate policy and sustainability efforts must account for this imbalance. Addressing environmental harm without addressing inequality risks perpetuating the very injustices that caused the crisis in the first place. By centering the needs of the most vulnerable, environmental justice not only strengthens the global fight against pollution and climate change\u2014it ensures that the future we build is both sustainable and fair.<\/p>\r\n Through the lens of Wall-E<\/em>, these interconnected concepts\u2014climate change, stewardship, pollution, carbon emissions, cap-and-trade, and environmental justice\u2014come to life. The film offers a cautionary tale about what happens when political action fails to address environmental challenges, while real-world examples show us the pathways to meaningful change. Addressing pollution and climate change isn\u2019t just about solving environmental problems; it\u2019s about rethinking how we govern, collaborate, and take responsibility for our shared future. As we look to the challenges ahead, the lessons of Wall-E<\/em> and the real world remind us that the choices we make today will shape the world for generations to come.<\/p>\r\n\r\n In the previous unit on economic security, we learned about the importance of development to the well being of humans. Yet, the world we live in today faces a critical challenge: how to balance economic growth with the health of our planet. Is it even possible? This is where [pb_glossary id=\"467\"]sustainability<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] enters the picture, acting as a guiding principle for development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to thrive. Within political science, sustainability isn\u2019t just about ecological balance; it\u2019s about managing competing interests between nations, industries, and communities in a way that creates a fair and livable future for everyone. The film Wall-E<\/em> paints a stark picture of what happens when sustainability is ignored\u2014a world consumed by waste, overconsumption, and ecological collapse. The grim visual of a lifeless, polluted Earth in the movie underscores the importance of adopting sustainable practices before it is too late. By examining a circular economy, green economy, and degrowth, this section will explore three competing visions for a more sustainable future, highlighting how sustainability is not just an idealistic goal but a practical, political, and economic necessity. These interconnected ideas also highlight how global cooperation and systemic change are crucial in preventing the dystopian scenarios depicted in Wall-E<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n In a world of finite resources, sustainability challenges us to rethink how we live, work, and consume in order to preserve the planet for future generations. The concept of sustainability gained global prominence in 1987 with the Brundtland Report, officially titled Our Common Future, which defined sustainable development as \u201cdevelopment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.\u201d At its core, sustainability emphasizes balance\u2014using natural resources in ways that allow ecosystems to regenerate, economies to thrive, and societies to flourish over the long term. Unsustainable practices, like deforestation in the Amazon, undermine this balance by degrading habitats, accelerating biodiversity loss, and intensifying climate change. In contrast, countries like Costa Rica offer real-world models of how sustainability can work. Through ambitious reforestation initiatives, renewable energy investments, and a strong commitment to ecotourism, Costa Rica has shown that economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. These programs have helped restore degraded lands, support local communities, and protect critical biodiversity, all while generating income through sustainable tourism. However, achieving sustainability on a global scale requires more than isolated national success stories\u2014it demands bold innovation in energy systems, particularly a global shift away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal. Sustainability is not just a policy goal; it\u2019s a guiding principle for how humanity can live within ecological limits while ensuring dignity and opportunity for all. Achieving sustainability on a global scale, however, requires innovation in energy systems, particularly a shift away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources.<\/p>\r\n In a world buried in waste and powered by the past, Wall-E quietly reminds us that the future might just run on sunshine\u2014literally. [pb_glossary id=\"468\"]Renewable energy<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] represents one of the most significant pathways toward achieving sustainability. Unlike fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide and contribute to global warming, renewable sources like solar, wind, and hydropower generate clean energy with minimal environmental impact. For instance, Denmark has become a global leader by generating nearly 50% of its electricity from wind power, showcasing how national policies and investments can drive change. Meanwhile, India has embraced solar energy, with massive solar farms like the Gujarat Solar Park contributing to the country\u2019s ambitious climate targets. In Wall-E<\/em>, we see the hero himself use solar panels to recharge himself every day to continue his work, showing not only the potential power of solar energy but also the longevity of it. Transitioning to renewables is not just a technical challenge but also a political one, as fossil fuel industries often resist change due to economic interests. However, renewable energy is a key component of larger systemic changes like the circular economy, which seeks to transform how resources are used and reused.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"528\"] But shifting how we power our world is only the beginning\u2014building a sustainable future means transforming the entire economy to prioritize environmental health, social equity, and long-term resilience. A [pb_glossary id=\"470\"]green economy<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] envisions a world where economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. It aims to reduce ecological risks, preserve biodiversity, and create jobs in green industries such as renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and clean technology. Germany provides a real-world example of a green economy in action, having invested heavily in renewable energy through its Energiewende (Energy Transition) policy. This program has reduced carbon emissions while fostering innovation and creating jobs in the clean energy sector. In Wall-E<\/em>, the remnants of Earth\u2019s old economy\u2014dominated by Buy-N-Large\u2014illustrate the dangers of prioritizing profit over sustainability. The unchecked corporate expansion in the film shows how short-term economic gains can lead to long-term environmental devastation. A green economy would have offered an alternative path, where economic activities are aligned with ecological limits. However, critics argue that even green growth may perpetuate overconsumption, which leads to environmental harm. This critique gives rise to the concept of degrowth, a movement that challenges the very idea of economic expansion as a measure of progress.<\/p>\r\n While a green economy aims to reduce environmental harm and promote sustainability, a circular economy goes a step further by designing waste out of the system entirely\u2014creating a model where nothing is lost, and everything is reused. In nature a fallen leaf decomposes, enriching the soil, which then nourishes new growth. The [pb_glossary id=\"469\"]circular economy<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] seeks to mimic this regenerative cycle by designing systems where waste is minimized, and materials are reused, repaired, or recycled. Unlike the traditional linear economy\u2014where resources are extracted, products are made, and waste is discarded\u2014the circular economy aims to create closed loops that eliminate unnecessary waste. For example, companies like IKEA are experimenting with furniture recycling programs, allowing customers to return old items to be refurbished or repurposed. In Wall-E<\/em>, Wall-E himself is a kind of symbolic hero of a circular ecnbomy. Left behind to clean the uninhabitable Earth, he methodically recycles waste, compressing it into neat cubes and stacking them to create order from chaos. He salvages, reuses, and repairs everything\u2014from solar panels to household items\u2014demonstrating a lifestyle rooted in reuse, conservation, and low-impact living. The shift to a circular economy would prevent such waste from accumulating in the first place, requiring political frameworks that incentivize sustainable design and manufacturing. The circular economy aligns closely with the goals of the green economy, which integrates sustainability into broader economic systems while addressing social and environmental challenges.<\/p>\r\n What if the key to our survival isn\u2019t more growth, but learning how to live with less\u2014less consumption, less waste, and fewer demands on a planet already stretched to its limits?\u00a0[pb_glossary id=\"471\"]Degrowth<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] advocates for intentionally slowing economic activity to reduce environmental harm and focus on quality of life rather than material wealth. It challenges the assumption that bigger is always better, asking instead whether society can thrive with fewer material goods and a deeper connection to well-being and nature. For example, Bhutan\u2019s use of Gross National Happiness as a measure of success prioritizes environmental conservation and social well-being over GDP. In Wall-E<\/em>, the humans aboard the Axiom embody the consequences of unchecked growth\u2014endless consumption has made them physically and mentally stagnant, unable to imagine a life outside their screens and chairs. The film critiques the societal inertia that comes from prioritizing growth at all costs, showing how it can disconnect people from their environment and purpose. Degrowth envisions an alternative: a simpler, more sustainable way of living that prioritizes environmental health and social equity. However, implementing degrowth policies is politically challenging, as they require rethinking deeply entrenched ideas about progress and prosperity. Still, degrowth offers a compelling critique of existing systems, tying together the interconnected concepts of sustainability, energy, and economy into a vision for a more balanced future. Check out the following video to learn more!<\/p>\r\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0MXP2E09dJQ\r\n Through the interconnected ideas of sustainability, renewable energy, the circular economy, the green economy, and degrowth, we see that addressing environmental challenges requires more than just technological solutions\u2014it demands systemic change and political will. Wall-E<\/em> serves as a powerful reminder of the consequences of ignoring these principles, portraying a world where unsustainable practices lead to collapse. Yet the film also offers hope, showing that with the right choices, humanity can rebuild and create a future in harmony with the planet. By exploring these concepts, we can better understand how political decisions shape our environment and how we might work together to create a more sustainable world.<\/p>\r\n\r\n In a world facing escalating environmental challenges, international cooperation is essential for tackling problems that transcend borders, like climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. Political science helps us understand the frameworks, treaties, and governance structures that nations use to address these complex issues. Global sustainability agreements reflect the collective effort of countries to balance economic growth with environmental protection while addressing inequality and development. These agreements aren\u2019t just about reducing emissions or saving species\u2014they\u2019re about creating a vision for a shared future. The animated film Wall-E<\/em> serves as a warning about what happens when humanity fails to cooperate on these critical challenges. The abandoned Earth depicted in the movie is a stark reminder of the consequences of unchecked environmental degradation, but it also emphasizes the importance of coordinated efforts to reverse such damage. By examining concepts like the carbon footprint, biodiversity conservation, and international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, we can better understand how political actors work\u2014or fail\u2014to address global sustainability.<\/p>\r\n When you drive a car, power your home, or even stream your favorite TV show, you are leaving behind an invisible impact. Every action we take, from commuting to work to purchasing goods, contributes to our individual [pb_glossary id=\"473\"]carbon footprint<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary], the measure of greenhouse gases generated by human activities. However, it\u2019s important to recognize that the term \"carbon footprint\" was popularized by fossil fuel companies as a way to shift responsibility onto individuals rather than corporations, despite the fact that just 100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global emissions. Though to make it even more complicated, that statistic comes from a report<\/a> that attributes the emissions coming from your<\/em> car to the fossil fuel companies. Is that...okay? Is it a fair claim? To learn more about the history of \"carbon footprint,\" check out the video below. While individual actions alone won\u2019t solve the climate crisis, collective efforts can still make a meaningful difference\u2014studies show that widespread adoption of plant-based diets, reduced air travel, and energy-efficient living could cut global emissions by up to 20%! On a global scale, carbon footprints determine how much greenhouse gas is released into the atmosphere annually, making them a critical factor in climate change. High carbon footprints are often tied to energy use in industrialized nations, where transportation, manufacturing, and electricity generation rely heavily on fossil fuels. For example, the United States and China are two of the world\u2019s largest emitters, contributing nearly 40% of global carbon emissions. Addressing carbon footprints requires not only individual actions but systemic changes, such as transitioning to renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and promoting sustainable practices. Even more, reducing carbon footprints also has cascading benefits, such as preserving biodiversity, which is another critical element of sustainability agreements.<\/p>\r\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=vqZVCEnY-Us\r\n Imagine a planet where forests, oceans, and wildlife no longer thrive, leaving humanity with nothing to depend on. Biodiversity\u2014the variety of life on Earth\u2014is vital for maintaining ecosystems that provide clean air, water, food, and climate regulation. Yet, human activities such as deforestation, pollution, and climate change are driving biodiversity loss at an alarming rate. The Amazon rainforest, often referred to as the \"lungs of the Earth,\" absorbs billions of tons of carbon dioxide annually, yet it is being destroyed for agriculture and logging. This loss of biodiversity destabilizes ecosystems, making them less resilient to climate change and threatening global food security. Wall-E<\/em> depicts a world where the complete collapse of ecosystems has left the planet lifeless, illustrating what happens when biodiversity conservation is neglected. The absence of any living species in the film underscores the vital role biodiversity plays in maintaining planetary balance and sustaining human survival. So much so that when Wall-E stumbles upon a lone tiny green plant, it sets into motion a huge series of events, eventually bringing humans back to Earth. But things would have been a lot easier if humans had not destroyed all the flora and fauna on Earth in the first place! International agreements like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aim to protect species and habitats through collaborative global efforts called [pb_glossary id=\"474\"]biodiversity conservation<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary], but implementation remains uneven. For example, while some nations have expanded protected areas and restored habitats, others struggle with enforcement due to economic priorities or political instability. Protecting biodiversity requires robust international environmental governance, which provides the framework for collective action.<\/p>\r\n Protecting biodiversity isn\u2019t just about saving individual species\u2014it\u2019s about managing the shared resources that sustain life itself. This challenge is at the heart of the [pb_glossary id=\"1275\"]tragedy of the commons[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>, a concept that explains how individuals, acting in their own short-term self-interest, can collectively deplete or destroy a shared resource, even when it\u2019s clear that long-term harm will affect everyone. Coined by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968, the term often applies to environmental systems like fisheries, forests, air, and water\u2014resources that are accessible to all but owned by none. For example, when too many countries overfish international waters, no single party bears the full responsibility, yet all suffer the consequences of ecosystem collapse. In biodiversity conservation, this tragedy plays out when habitats are destroyed for agriculture, logging, or mining\u2014activities that benefit a few in the short term but erode ecosystems needed by all in the long term. At the global level, international relations complicate the issue, as states act in their own national interest and there is no central authority to enforce cooperation or penalize overuse of global commons like the atmosphere or oceans. This lack of enforcement power makes collective action difficult, especially when countries disagree over who should act, how much each should contribute, or who is most responsible. The tragedy of the commons highlights the need for collective governance, international agreements, and enforcement mechanisms that protect shared resources before they reach a tipping point. Without cooperation and regulation, the very environments that sustain human and non-human life alike can be pushed beyond recovery. But how can we get states to work together when their basic setting is often self interest?<\/p>\r\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/CxC161GvMPc?si=KrSv85BsdOG0tW4B\r\n The health of the planet often depends on nations working together toward a common goal\u2014something far easier said than done. [pb_glossary id=\"475\"]International environmental governance<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] forms the backbone of global sustainability efforts, bringing together states, international organizations, civil society groups, and non-state actors to address transboundary environmental challenges like climate change, deforestation, and ocean pollution. These governance systems are built through agreements and institutions, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which provides a platform for climate negotiations and oversees key treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. At their core, these agreements rely on cooperation and consensus, but that process is complicated by differing national interests, economic capacities, and levels of responsibility for environmental degradation. Wealthier, industrialized countries typically focus on emissions reduction and technological innovation, while many developing nations emphasize the need for adaptation funding, climate resilience, and historical accountability, arguing that they suffer the worst effects of a crisis they contributed to the least.<\/p>\r\n This is where studying international relations (IR) becomes essential. IR helps us understand why environmental governance is so difficult: it requires cooperation in a world defined by sovereignty, power asymmetries, and competing priorities. States act based on national interests, which can conflict with global environmental goals. For instance, fossil fuel-exporting countries may resist emission cuts, while vulnerable island nations demand urgent action. Even when agreements are reached, as with the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreement, enforcement mechanisms are often weak or non-binding, relying on trust, diplomacy, and soft pressure rather than hard penalties. Yet despite these obstacles, international governance has achieved important milestones. The Kyoto Protocol marked the first binding agreement on emission reductions, setting a precedent for future action, while the Paris Agreement built on that legacy with a more inclusive, flexible framework focused on voluntary national targets and climate finance. Understanding these efforts through the lens of IR allows us to see not just what\u2019s being negotiated, but why negotiations unfold the way they do\u2014and what it takes to make global cooperation possible in an unequal, fragmented world.<\/p>\r\n Sometimes, the first step toward solving a crisis is acknowledging who bears the greatest responsibility. The [pb_glossary id=\"476\"]Kyoto Protocol<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary], adopted in 1997, was a groundbreaking treaty that set binding emission reduction targets for developed countries. It was based on the principle of \"common but differentiated responsibilities,\" recognizing that industrialized nations had contributed most to historical greenhouse gas emissions and therefore should take the lead in reducing them. While the protocol represented a critical step forward, it also exposed challenges in global climate governance. For example, the United States refused to ratify the treaty, citing concerns that it unfairly excluded developing nations like India and China from binding targets. This lack of participation from major emitters weakened the protocol\u2019s overall impact, and its rigid framework left little room for adapting to changing circumstances.\u00a0The absence of accountability mechanisms in the film reflects real-world struggles to enforce ambitious climate goals, emphasizing the need for frameworks like the Paris Agreement to foster broader participation. However, the Kyoto Protocol laid the foundation for the Paris Agreement, which introduced a more flexible and inclusive approach to international climate policy.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"776\"] Hope often lies in collaboration, and the [pb_glossary id=\"477\"]Paris Agreement<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] stands as a testament to what nations can accomplish when they work together. Adopted in 2015, the Paris Agreement marked a turning point in international efforts to combat climate change. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, it requires participation from all nations, developed and developing alike, to submit NDCs detailing how they will reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts. Its goal is to limit global warming to below 2\u00b0C above pre-industrial levels, with an aspirational target of 1.5\u00b0C. This flexibility allows countries to tailor their commitments to their unique circumstances, but it also introduces challenges related to enforcement and accountability, as there are no penalties for failing to meet targets. In Wall-E<\/em>, the lack of accountability and systemic follow-through mirrors these real-world challenges, where ambitious agreements often struggle with implementation. The disorganized abandonment of Earth depicted in the film highlights the importance of ensuring that nations follow through on their commitments to prevent environmental collapse. Despite these hurdles, the Paris Agreement represents a significant step forward, as it emphasizes global cooperation and recognizes the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic issues. This holistic approach aligns with the broader framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which address sustainability across multiple dimensions.<\/p>\r\n Building a better future requires more than good intentions\u2014it demands a comprehensive plan. The [pb_glossary id=\"478\"]Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary], adopted by the United Nations in 2015, provide a comprehensive framework for addressing global challenges by 2030. These 17 goals cover a wide range of issues, from ending poverty (SDG 1) and promoting quality education (SDG 4) to addressing climate action (SDG 13) and conserving life on land (SDG 15). Unlike previous frameworks, the SDGs emphasize the interdependence of these issues, recognizing that sustainable development requires balancing environmental, social, and economic priorities. For example, addressing climate change (SDG 13) also contributes to reducing inequalities (SDG 10) by protecting vulnerable communities disproportionately affected by rising sea levels and extreme weather events. In Wall-E<\/em>, the dystopian vision of Earth\u2019s collapse serves as a cautionary tale about what happens when these interconnected goals are ignored, highlighting the need for integrated, forward-thinking policies. The film\u2019s depiction of human survival on the Axiom reflects the consequences of neglecting long-term sustainable planning and the importance of addressing environmental and social issues together. Real-world initiatives like the European Green Deal exemplify how nations can align their policies with the SDGs by pursuing carbon neutrality, promoting social equity, and protecting natural resources. However, achieving these ambitious goals requires unprecedented levels of global cooperation and political will, illustrating the complexity of international sustainability agreements.<\/p>\r\n Through the interconnected concepts of carbon footprints, biodiversity conservation, international environmental governance, and landmark agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement, and SDGs, it becomes clear that tackling environmental challenges demands coordinated global action. Wall-E<\/em> serves as a powerful reminder of the stakes, illustrating the catastrophic consequences of inaction while also inspiring hope for change. These agreements represent humanity\u2019s efforts to bridge political divides and address the shared responsibility of safeguarding the planet. By examining their successes and shortcomings, we can better understand how international relations shape the future of sustainability and the collective choices that will define generations to come.<\/p>\r\n\r\n As we\u2019ve seen, sustainability is not just a buzzword; it\u2019s the crux of humanity\u2019s survival and our shared responsibility to the planet. From rethinking how we consume resources through the circular economy to imagining a world powered by renewable energy, addressing environmental challenges requires bold political action, systemic change, and a collective shift in priorities. The concepts explored in this chapter\u2014sustainability, renewable energy, the green economy, degrowth, and international cooperation\u2014show us what\u2019s at stake if we fail and what\u2019s possible if we succeed. Wall-E<\/em> may be a fictional film, but its poignant message serves as both a warning and a rallying cry for change: we can\u2019t let piles of garbage or corporate logos be our legacy. And while saving the planet might feel overwhelming, remember that even a plucky little robot managed to make a difference. So, if Wall-E can clean up an entire planet, the least we can do is get serious about saving ours\u2014because unlike the humans in Wall-E<\/em>, we\u2019re not getting an Axiom spaceship to escape this mess.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Degrowth, explained | Grist<\/strong> Directive A113 - Wall*E (HD) (SPOILERS) | Nidhogg the Dragon<\/strong> An Introduction to Amartya Sen\u2019s Development as Freedom A Macat Geography Analysis | Isaac Lyne<\/strong> WALL\u2219E\u2019s \u201cDay at Work\u201d | WallEMovie<\/strong> We WILL Fix Climate Change! | Kurzgesagt \u2013 In a Nutshell<\/strong> What is the tragedy of the commons?<\/strong>\r\nVideo by Nicholas Amendolare\r\nLicense: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\r\n Why Big Oil Loves to Talk About Your Carbon Footprint | DW Planet A<\/strong> Imagine this: Earth covered in towering piles of trash, the air choked with pollution, and not a single tree or animal in sight. Sound like a sci-fi nightmare? Unfortunately, it\u2019s a future we might inch closer to if we ignore the environmental challenges of our time. Understanding environmental politics and global sustainability is crucial for navigating this critical moment in human history. These issues aren\u2019t just about science\u2014they\u2019re deeply political, requiring global cooperation, tough decisions, and innovative solutions to balance economic growth with the planet\u2019s health. Whether it\u2019s reducing carbon emissions, conserving biodiversity, or shifting to renewable energy, environmental politics is about how humanity decides to govern its relationship with the natural world. And let\u2019s face it: there\u2019s no “Planet B.” What might a planet ravaged by pollution look like? Check out this short scene from the film\u00a0Wall-E<\/em> to see!<\/p>\nLearning Outcomes<\/h2>\r\n
\r\n \t
\r\n \t
9.1: <\/span>Case Study \u2013\u00a0Wall-E\u00a0<\/em>(2008)<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\r\n
International Relations Theories & Wall-E<\/i><\/h2>\r\nUnderstanding the complexities of global politics requires tools that help us analyze power, cooperation, culture, and inequality. International relations (IR) theories\u2014realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism\u2014offer frameworks to make sense of how nations, corporations, and individuals interact with each other and the environment. These theories don\u2019t just explain past behavior; they also provide insights into how we might respond to pressing challenges like environmental degradation, climate change, and resource scarcity. The animated film Wall-E<\/em>, while fictional, offers a poignant lens through which we can explore these theories in action. By examining the events of Wall-E<\/em> through each theoretical perspective, we can uncover the underlying dynamics that contribute to environmental collapse and imagine pathways for political solutions.\r\n
Realism: Competing for Survival in Wall-E\u2019s Wasteland<\/strong><\/h3>\r\nRealism emphasizes the centrality of power, survival, and self-interest in global politics. From a realist perspective, the events of Wall-E<\/em> can be understood as the failure of states to prioritize long-term survival over short-term gains. Realists argue that in an anarchic international system\u2014where no central authority exists above nations\u2014states act in their own interest to secure resources and power. In the film, the Earth\u2019s ecological collapse mirrors what happens when competition for resources outweighs collective action. The unchecked consumption depicted in Wall-E<\/em> suggests a realist world where no single actor enforces environmental regulations, and states focus instead on maximizing economic growth to outcompete rivals. Realists might also interpret humanity\u2019s retreat to the Axiom spaceship as a rational decision for survival, prioritizing the safety of a select group over the restoration of a ruined Earth. This perspective highlights the challenges of collective action in addressing global environmental crises, as each state prioritizes its own immediate interests. However, this theory struggles to explain how cooperation might arise to save the planet, transitioning us to liberalism.\r\n
Liberalism: Finding Hope in Cooperation, From the Axiom to Earth<\/strong><\/h3>\r\nLiberalism offers a more optimistic perspective, emphasizing the role of cooperation, institutions, and shared interests in addressing global challenges. From a liberal viewpoint, Wall-E<\/em> demonstrates what happens when the mechanisms for international cooperation fail. In the real world, liberal theorists point to treaties like the Paris Agreement or organizations like the United Nations as vital tools for mitigating climate change by bringing states together to create and enforce environmental standards. In the film\u2019s dystopian future, the absence of such cooperation is evident\u2014no global governance structures were able to prevent environmental degradation or create incentives for sustainability. Liberalism would also highlight the potential of humanity\u2019s eventual return to Earth, suggesting that cooperative governance and shared responsibility could enable collective recovery. The relationship between Wall-E and Eve, representing mutual aid and trust, serves as a microcosm of the liberal ideal that working together can overcome even the direst circumstances. While liberalism underscores the potential for collaboration, constructivism delves deeper into the cultural and social norms that shape human behavior.\r\n
Constructivism: Shifting Norms and Rethinking Humanity in Wall-E\u2019s World<\/strong><\/h3>\r\nConstructivism focuses on the role of ideas, identities, and social norms in shaping global politics. Constructivists would argue that the events of Wall-E<\/em> reflect how societal values and norms\u2014particularly those tied to consumerism\u2014shape political and environmental outcomes. The film critiques a culture obsessed with consumption and convenience, where humans on the Axiom have normalized wastefulness to the point of losing their connection to the natural world. Constructivism helps us understand how these destructive norms became entrenched and how shifting cultural values might drive change. For instance, the small plant Wall-E discovers symbolizes the potential for new ideas\u2014such as sustainability and environmental stewardship\u2014to reframe humanity\u2019s identity and priorities. Constructivist theorists in real-world contexts often point to the power of global movements, like Fridays for Future, which use ideas and symbols to transform societal norms and push for stronger environmental action. This theory suggests that rethinking humanity\u2019s relationship with the environment is as critical as implementing policies, linking to the material concerns of Marxism.\r\n
Marxism: Buy-N-Large and the Costs of Capitalist Overreach<\/strong><\/h3>\r\nMarxism interprets global issues through the lens of class conflict and economic exploitation. A Marxist analysis of Wall-E<\/em> would focus on how capitalism\u2019s drive for profit led to environmental devastation. The Buy-N-Large corporation, depicted in the film as controlling every aspect of society, embodies the unchecked power of corporate interests prioritizing growth over sustainability. Marxists argue that such systems exploit both labor and natural resources, creating immense inequality and ecological harm. In the real world, similar patterns can be seen in how industrialized nations disproportionately consume resources and outsource environmental degradation to poorer nations in the Global South. The conditions aboard the Axiom also reflect Marxist concerns, with humans rendered passive consumers, entirely dependent on a system that strips them of agency and autonomy. For Marxists, overcoming environmental crises requires dismantling exploitative capitalist systems and replacing them with more equitable, sustainable models of production and consumption. While Marxism critiques economic systems, feminism turns the focus to power dynamics in human relationships.\r\n
Feminism: Gender, Power, and Environmental Justice<\/strong><\/h3>\r\nFeminist IR theory highlights how power dynamics, including gender, intersect with global political and environmental issues. Feminist interpretations of Wall-E<\/em> might focus on how the film critiques hierarchical systems that concentrate power in the hands of corporations like Buy-N-Large, sidelining marginalized voices in the process. Feminists argue that environmental harm often disproportionately affects women, especially in vulnerable communities, as they are frequently the primary caregivers and resource managers in their households. In the real world, feminist scholars point to examples like the Chipko movement in India, where women played a leading role in protecting forests from deforestation. In Wall-E<\/em>, Eve\u2019s character can be interpreted as a feminist symbol, taking an active role in reclaiming the planet while Wall-E provides support through care and collaboration. This partnership contrasts with the passive, infantilized humans on the Axiom, emphasizing the importance of diverse, inclusive leadership in addressing global challenges. Feminism invites us to rethink who holds power and how global environmental policies can better serve marginalized groups.\r\n\r\nBy applying these five theories to Wall-E<\/em>, we see how each framework offers unique insights into the political, economic, and cultural dynamics of environmental collapse and recovery. While realism highlights the self-interest that drives environmental neglect, liberalism and constructivism emphasize the potential for cooperation and normative change. Marxism critiques the capitalist systems that perpetuate environmental harm, while feminism urges us to consider whose voices are included in the conversation. Together, these theories provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges humanity faces and the pathways toward a more sustainable and equitable future. As Wall-E<\/em> reminds us, the choices we make today will shape the world for generations to come.\r\n\r\n\r\n
9.2: <\/span>The Politics of <\/span>Pollution and <\/span>Climate Change<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\r\n
![\"Hyper-realistic](\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/A_hyper-realistic_industrial_power_plant_with_mult-300x300.jpg\")
Cap and trade is a market based system designed to incentivize lower emissions through competition. Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.[\/caption]\r\n9.3: <\/span>Sustainability, Green Economy, and Degrowth<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\r\n
![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/b\/ba\/Linear_versus_circular.jpg\")
Our current global economic system is based on a linear economy. But we now know how bad that is for the environment. So how is a circular economy better? Linear vs Circle<\/a> Catherine Weetman<\/a> CC BY-SA 4.0<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n9.4: <\/span>International Relations and Sustainability Agreements<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\r\n
![\"List](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/2\/2b\/Sustainable_Development_Goals_jp.svg\/776px-Sustainable_Development_Goals_jp.svg.png?20230925082138\")
A set of 17 global goals established by the United Nations in 2015 to promote sustainability, the SDGs address diverse issues all connected to sustainability. Sustainable Goals<\/a>, UN free usage license<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\nConclusion<\/h2>\r\n
CC Licensed Content, Original<\/h3>\r\nThis educational material includes AI-generated content from ChatGPT by OpenAI. The original content created by Eric Fiske and Deborah Barr from Hillsborough Community College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0<\/a>).\u00a0<\/span>\r\n
\r\n\r\nCC Licensed Content Included<\/h4>\r\nLinear vs Circle<\/strong>\r\nCatherine Weetman\r\nLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0\r\n\r\nSustainable Goals<\/strong>\r\nUnited Nations\r\nLicense: UN free usage license.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\nOther Licensed Content Included<\/h4>\r\n
Video by Grist<\/em>.
License: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\r\n
Video by Nidhogg the Dragon<\/em>.
License: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\r\n
Video by Isaac Lyne<\/em>.
License: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\r\n
Video by WallEMovie<\/em>.
License: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\r\n
Video by Kurzgesagt \u2013 In a Nutshell<\/em>.
License: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\r\n
Video by DW Planet A<\/em>.
License: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"Introduction<\/h2>\n
![Linear vs Circle<\/a>](\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:Linear_versus_circular.jpg\"){kind=link}