There are almost 200 different countries in the world. Each country corresponds with different policies on unique conditions and societal structures of the local population. The world faces this environmental crisis together, but it takes a different face for each country. Capitalism and the inequalities it perpetuated played a key role. People have been debating environmental responsibility for centuries, and "reduce, reuse, recycle" has been a long-standing slogan. This ideology promotes individual and industrial efforts to reduce waste, but it also somewhat risks overshadowing the hidden issues of overproduction and overconsumption. Without addressing the differences in social structure and economic growth, the lack of uniformity in environmental standards often turns developed and developing countries against each other while overlooking disparities between them. "Reduce, reuse, recycle" is a step in the right direction, but shouting slogans alone is not enough to tackle the deep root causes of environmental degradation.

The “reduce, reuse, recycle” method helps people and countries worldwide protect the environment. And among all these three ideologies, “reduce” is the most effective one. If people reduce their daily consumption, their expenses will be cut down directly, leading to less stuff to organize and less waste generated. This method largely helps the waste disposal system and lowers people’s demands for new products. The extra resources and energy conserved can be used in the production processes. For instance, people can buy a reusable water bottle instead of buying single-use plastic water every time. This can greatly diminish the accumulation of non-biodegradable waste.
The second ideology is “reuse”. People usually reuse the item for a different purpose. Also simply repairing the old item to longer its life is another kind of reuse. The reason reuse is popular is because through this method people don’t need to discard old products right away by finding their new values. We could reduce the environmental costs significantly through reuse. Moreover, reuse is not just about creating less waste, it's also an intentional decision to value resourcefulness over convenience. For example, people can reuse glass jars as storage containers or planters. It can keep them out of the waste stream and reduce the need for new containers.
The third ideology is “recycled”. Recycling is beneficial however it comes with its own disadvantages. Recycling needs a lot of effort and dedication because it always needs an entire system from production to recycling to reproduction to achieve the final goal of reducing waste. It also requires a large amount of economic investment to transform waste materials into new forms. It is true that the entire system can successfully divert the waste from landfills and reduce the need for raw materials, it is only sometimes the best option. The effectiveness of recycling programs varies widely depending on the materials in question and the local infrastructure. Moreover, not all materials are recyclable. The quality of recycled products can also be limited to the original materials. That would make their applications and market value uncertain.

It is true that "Reduce, reuse, recycle" is one of the most important methods to manage waste and resources. This principle promotes individual actions in environmental protection. However, this method also has its own limitations.
Firstly, "reduce, reuse, recycle" always forgets to mention the processes before and during production and distribution. It only focuses on the end of the product life cycle where the items are already produced. Although these methods successfully conserve resources and classify trash from landfills, it does not solve the actual issues of overproduction. Our society is supported by continuous economic growth and consumer consumption. It means that only if people keep consuming and buying can bring up the world economy. However, the role of “reduce, reuse, recycle” cuts down the profit motive which means it interferes with the development of the economy (Ekins et al.). Under this type of situation, many countries would rather sacrifice environmental conservancy in exchange for faster development.
Secondly, the responsibility of clearing waste is disproportionately placed on consumers rather than producers. Undoubtedly everyone knows that the environment is important in our daily life, and we’ve been told thousands of times to make environmentally conscious choices. Individual efforts to "reduce, reuse, recycle" will be largely limited without changes to the structure system that shapes consumption patterns. In our daily life advertising is a common strategy to stimulate the market and economy. The advertising and marketing industry is supported by hundreds of forms of advertisements which encourage consumers to constantly seek new products and upgrades. For example, Black Friday is known as one of the most popular dates in the world because of significant discounts. There are advertisements everywhere that attract people to consume and buy stuff and for this reason, we can always see many people in the mall that day. However, the real problem that lies under this phenomenon is that people would buy many things that have discounts which they don’t need. The “reduce, reuse, and recycle” principle keeps telling consumers to reduce waste to reduce environmental costs, however, there are no relative regulations to stop those advertisements that keep encouraging people to buy. This kind of advertising could easily cause overconsumption.
Furthermore, nowadays the responsibility of protecting the environment is disproportionately put on individual actions. We can find that there are slogans and propaganda everywhere encouraging people to protect the environment and regard it as a personal virtue. Seeking cooperations between individuals and groups verbally is not realistic as there exist problems in these groups. Many corporations prioritize profit over environmental sustainability. This will lead to practices such as resource extraction, pollution, and unsustainable manufacturing processes. This could also make the enforcement of government policies insufficient. At the same time global institutions may face challenges such as insufficient funding, limited enforcement mechanisms, or lack of consensus among member states. These problems largely limit their ability to make contributions to the world. To protect the environment, we must not only move beyond personal responsibility to address the environmental crises but also solve the existing problems in different institutions.

Developing countries should not be held to the same environmental standards as developed countries. Environmental degradation is associated with the expansion of capitalism. Capitalism emphasizes profit maximization and perpetual growth. This drives overproduction and overconsumption with the cost of the environment and marginalized communities. It further deepens the gap between different countries regarding different stages of industrialization and economic needs.
Historically, since colonial expansion, developed countries have gained many benefits. They accumulate wealth and resources through imperialism and exploitation of natural resources. Although colonialism ended centuries ago, it continues to shape global inequalities. Developed nations always consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources while exporting environmental degradation. Developing countries then need to bear the consequence of environmental crises. For example, developed countries have more access to resources like clean water and air. Because of lack of these resources, developing country citizens are more likely to have health problems, shorter lifespan, and cycles of poverty. Developing small island countries are especially affected by climate change because of sea-level rise and extreme weather. Developing countries are limited because of their economic dependency on developed nations. They are pressured to industrialize rapidly to compete in the global market. There are a huge number of foreign factories from developed countries in South Asia and Africa where they keep emitting harmful gasses. For example, in Bangladesh, the garment industry has experienced rapid growth over the past few decades. However, this situation is fueled by demands from global fashion brands for cheap labor and fast production. As a result, many factories have sprung up in and around the capital city of Dhaka. This rapid industrialization has come at a significant environmental cost. Many of these factories lack proper waste management systems and emit harmful gasses and pollutants into the air and waterways. The unchecked discharge of industrial waste has led to severe pollution of rivers and groundwater, as well as air pollution in surrounding communities. They must withstand the worst environmental degradation caused by global supply chains. These would cause pollution, deforestation, and resource depletion in these regions, and workers in these countries are more likely to be exposed to hazardous working conditions. This creates a paradox where developing countries are expected to adhere to the same environmental standards as developed nations. However, they don’t have the same resources or technology.
Furthermore, environmental issues create inequalities in minor communities. Minority people are more exposed to the environmental hazards because of their property status and regions. The consequence of environmental contamination largely affects the daily lives of marginalized communities. Environmental Racism is a term used to describe that marginalized communities are highly likely to be exposed to environmental hazards such as pollution, toxic waste sites, and industrial emissions. For example, valuable water sources are polluted in Africa which makes it even harder for people to grow plants. Survival becomes a severe problem in those regions. Under the broader context of capitalism where people are more concerned about production and consumption, the actual requirements of minority people are always neglected. This phenomenon shows that there are inequalities in environmental protection and public health which can cause harm to a broader context. Environmental justice is inseparable from social justice. People who are least responsible for environmental harm are often the most impacted by its consequences.

My suggestion for solving the environmental degradation problem is that people should redistribute the responsibility of protecting the environment. It cannot be solely by the individual consumers but different organizations and corporations also need to take their roles. We also need to challenge the structures of capitalism which prioritize profit over environmental consequences and equality. This requires a method that could integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations.
We must get rid of the definition of progress nowadays first. Instead of assessing the trend of GDP, we need to consider the well-being of a country through various aspects. For example, I think social equity, sustainability, and safety should also be counted as a factor. Back to the global economic system, it is true that the main goal is to prioritize the flourishing of human society, however, ecological integrity cannot be neglected. All countries put too much emphasis on consumption and accumulation of wealth currently. We need to transition to alternative models such as degrowth, circular economies, and regenerative agriculture that prioritize resilience and community well-being. Secondly, we must switch from individual actions to corporations to protect the environment. Governments and societies have greater environmental impact, they can regulate and incentivize individuals to go for a better environment. For example, the government can control carbon pricing, pollution taxes, and product stewardship programs. We also need to advocate for democratic control over resources and decision-making processes. Thirdly, we must promote global solidarity to address environmental challenges. We need to recognize the interconnectedness of environmental issues. Everyone shared the same responsibility to protect the planet. For example, developed countries should support developing countries in transitioning to sustainable development pathways through technology transfer, ability building, and debt relief.

In conclusion, it is true that the principle of “reduce, reuse, recycle” has a strong positive effect on the protection of the environment, however, it does not address the underlying issue of overconsumption and overproduction. Under capitalism where profits and benefits are considered the driving force of society, the inequalities between developed countries and developing countries are getting worse. To address this problem, we need to raise awareness of the environmental inequalities. We also need to change individual actions to cooperative behavior. We need to keep making sustainable development and mitigate global inequalities. Let’s hope that our efforts will give the future a green planet with a blue sky and white clouds.