Annotation #3: Epiphany<br /> The paragraph suggests that while climate change is important and has real consequences, it is important to also think about the long term trajectory of economic development and how that would impact future generations, even in the face of environmental damage. When looking at the tradeoff of environmental damage and economic growth in regions like Africa, this quote suggests a more complex tradeoff. This is because economic growth could lead to better technology and innovation for the currently underdeveloped continent, while also providing the region with better technology to counter climate change in the future. This made me think about the debate of economy versus the environment in a more nuanced way, and helped me understand the side that supports economic development a little more.

Annotation #2: Questions How can governments use the extra revenue from cap and trade legislation in an effective manner to minimize impacts on households while still lowering carbon emissions? Would recycling back to households through tax cuts and spending programs be sufficient to counter the losses posed by such legislation? Our topic question asks whether economic growth justifies the environmental damage it does in Africa. This question could help us understand if there is a way to get best of both worlds, and reduce the impact environmental legislation has on the economy and civilians.

Annotation #1: Thoughts This quote shows the authors main point on how global warming and climate change can be represented in economic models such as negative externalities, as it shows how regular activities have hidden social costs, which is in this case harming the environment. The author talks about how this is a market failure, and segways into talking about policy change, suggesting that he is going to address policy changes to help minimize the hidden social costs of economic development. This connects to our topic question on "Does economic growth justify the environmental damage it does in Africa?", this idea on how economic growth has the unintended cost of environmental damage (negative externality) is prevalent, and learning about certain policy changes to help mitigate the impact it has on the environment could help make the tradeoff for economic growth in Africa less adverse.

Annotation #1: Thoughts

"World inequality, however, cannot be explained by climate or diseases, or any version of the geography hypothesis. Just think of Nogales. What separates the two parts is not climate, geography, or disease environment, but the U.S.-Mexico border." In this passage the author is debunking various aspects of the geographic theory, which attributes difference in economic success to geographic conditions. The author is essentially saying that while theories about climate and disease impacting a countries productivity and consequently economic development may seem plausible. When looking at actual events in history, we can see that even countries with exactly the same geographies still face completely different circumstances economically. This connects to Singapore as we can see this phenomenon occur here as well, with Singapore being significantly better off economically than its neighbours such as Thailand, Cambodia, etc.

Annotation #2: Question “But mostly no, because those aspects of culture often emphasized—religion, national ethics, African or Latin values—are just not important for understanding how we got here and why the inequalities in the world persist.”

This passage is introducing the culture theory, a theory that cites cultural differences as the source of inequality in economic growth across the world. This specific quote elaborates on why Robinson doesn’t believe that culture is a significant cause of the difference in economic growth across the world, stating that aspects of culture such as “religion, national ethics and African or Latin values” are not important. This idea made me wonder about the impact a societies intrinsic cultural values can have when looked at from a larger scale: How do a society’s intrinsic cultural values influence its long-term economic growth and development on a global scale? When connecting this to Singapore and it’s own rapid economic development, I wonder if certain cultural values such as value of education in many asian cultures or respect for the law, influenced the way Singapore as a country was able to develop economically on a global scale.

**Annotation #3: Epiphanies ** “China, despite many imperfections in its economic and political system, has been the most rapidly growing nation of the past three decades. Chinese poverty until Mao Zedong’s death had nothing to do with Chinese culture; it was due to the disastrous way Mao organized the economy and conducted politics.”

This passage further analyzing why the culture theory doesn’t properly explain the economic growth of certain countries over others.This specific quote shifts the focus from cultural explanations of poverty to highlighting how government policies and political decisions can drastically impact economic outcomes. It made me think a lot more about the significant influence that historical and political events have on countries, and how decisions from decades ago can still have lasting impact on countries. What interested me most was how some countries, like China, were able to recover and achieve significant growth, while others, such as certain African nations, continue to struggle. This made me reflect on how institutions and governance propel a country towards prosperity, and connecting it to Singapore made me wonder the unique aspects of it's institutions that lead it to be so economically successful.