While 30 Rock politely pokes fun at Gore's climate crusade, his appeal to viewers asking them to spread the word about the importance of environmental awareness to lawmakers is a serious task that environmental activists all over the world have readily undertaken. However, green policy has seen its highs (like the success of the Cash for Clunkers program) and its lows (like the unwhelming climax of the Copenhagen Climate Summit). In today's news, the E.P.A. has requested that Obama put a tighter restriction on pollutants that create smog. This new standard would cost big bucks for oil companies and their sister industries, but would also take a huge chunk out of health care costs.
The New York Times reports:
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a stricter new standard for smog-causing pollutants on Thursday that, if adopted, will impose large costs on industry and local governments but will also bring substantial health benefits to millions of Americans...The agency estimated that complying with the new standard will cost $19 billion to $90 billion a year by 2020, to be largely be borne by manufacturers, oil refiners and utilities. But the agency said that those costs would be offset by the benefits to human health, which it valued at $13 billion to $100 billion a year in the same period. If the stricter standard of 0.06 parts per million is adopted, agency analysts project that as many as 12,000 premature deaths from heart or lung diseases could be avoided, along with thousands of cases of bronchitis, asthma and non-fatal heart attacks.
With this information in mind, I'd like to prompt a conversation about the economic impact of the environmental movement. Some things I'm wondering are:
- What is a better environment worth to you?
- Is there such a thing as a business-friendly green alternative? Where do you draw the line between profit and environmental impact?
- What kind of green jobs already exist? What ones could be created?
It seems to me like in the case of the proposed limitations for smog-producing pollution the benifts outweigh the costs - a greater amount of monney is being saved, in the form of prevented health benefits, than is being spent by the corporations to comly with such rules. It also seems like the short term investment to comply with the regulations will result, long term, in cleaner air and better health.
ReplyDeleteA,T
Interesting that you mention Global Warming, because economic considerations are arguably the main reason for our lack of progress in curbing greenhouse emissions. Developing nations, notably China and India, refuse to cut emissions as thoroughly as developed western countries, claiming that the problem of global warming was caused by westerners, and so should be solved by westerners. Western nations, in turn, are less willing to cut emissions drastically, unwilling to put their economies less competitive (especially with China).
ReplyDeleteit's sad that, in almost every case, we need to be directly effected by something in order to respond to it. Also, populations won't take the cost of the pollution they're created into consideration because it's simply not directly effecting them. This creates an externality by populations that heighten competition and forces other populations to step up their own game. Nature is not something to mess with; this could get scary.
ReplyDeleteIt's conservation ethic versus economic gain. Initially it may seem as if conservation is a more costly alternative. It would be easier to keep doing things the way that we’ve always done them; global warming and species extinction seem to be merely vague threats by scientists who have trouble giving specific details. Such things may take a long time to actually come to culmination. As stated by E. Wilson in his book Biophilia, "natural selection has programmed people to think mostly in physiological time." People tend to think in days or years versus decades, centuries, and any longer period of time. They are more likely to consider how they will gain from things at the moment than how their actions may affect the world years in the future. As the earth is probably not going to do something overly drastic anytime soon, it’s easy to forget why conservation is important. However, “going green” is the right thing to do in the long run. It would improve the state of the environment, which is already deteriorating thanks to, for the large part, human actions. So while it may be more profitable in the short-run to gloss over conservation practices, in the long run it is vital for the health of not only the environment, but humanity as well.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really controversial topic. I totally agree with Waytes's opinion (if only industrialists could see it this way). Its sooo unfair too that countries such as the US and other developed countries that pollutes the environment most wont be as severely affected as developing countries such as the Maldives that emit the least pollutants. If we don't spend the money now to correct this problem, future generations (who will have fewer resources) will have to eventually pay more money. The longer we wait to do something, the more money we will have to pay and the more human resources will be lost.
ReplyDelete"Going Green" is the hot new thing. People are recycling and buying eco freindly goods. Government is now trying to expand it from the individual and local level to a more national and global expansion. I think that it is a good thing that government is making the market of manufacturing companies"go green." Like Al Gore said we need to work together if we hope to go farther. This is an excellent article Bridget and it hits straight at principle number 7: Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes. By decreasing the level of pollution produced by manufacturing companies, it will be to the advantage to peoples health and even lives. In this case I support the governments decision to step in. T & A
ReplyDeleteI think producing these new goods are beneficial to the earth, the human population, and the economy. It creates a whole new sector of products, another market for them, and solicits consumers who want to buy the products.
ReplyDeleteT
I don't know if anyone else has read "The Road" but that sounds like a less than excellent ideal future. Basically, I don't think we have a choice. I heard someone say once that it's like we're in a car driving at 100 miles an hour towards a brick wall and arguing over who gets into sit in which seat. It seems like in the public arena environmentalism is not taken seriously. Like the article Prof. McKinney sent where Global Warming ranked dead last on the list of issues that are important to the American Public. I think it would help to asses which principle are prioritized most. It seems like traditionally we value markets and marginal thinking. (Leaving things alone, thinking short term.) But that isn't working. I agree with what Lashawn said about government intervention. It is time to incorporate sustainable practices with business plans.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental laws and regulations are a must for the near future. We are already causing harmful effects to the environment that can snowball overtime. Making economical trade-offs to help our environmental problems would definitely be a lot easier then making economical decisions to fix a larger problem. In most cases, it is much easier to prevent and stop an environmental problem at its source, rather then letting the problem build up and become a bigger issue in the future. Before we know it we could be in such a mess with global warming that not even money or technology could help reduce the problem. (A, T)
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental damage is one very clear example of the counterproductive effects of markets. Despite the widely-acknowledged consequences of these business practices, these consequences do not yet affect the businesses or the public enough for real steps to be taken against them. Governments should take action to regulate against the massive negative externality that is Global Climate Change, but unfortunately are heavily influenced by businesses worried about being less competitive in the short-term. As such we get cap-and-trade proposals rather than a carbon tax, as well as conferences that come to no conclusion other than to shovel money at the problem. (A)
ReplyDeleteI wonder how accurate that health data is. How does anaylsis estimate how pollution effects the health of a population? How could they possibly know if 2000 of those people are affected by other factors? these are assumptions that could very well turn out to be wrong, and i dont see the point of burdeing industry, especially manufactoring (which is already struggling) with the added 90 billion dollar burden in the middle of an recovery??? are they asking for the whole delicately built house of cards to come tumbling back down again?? If accepted and turned into law, this would be a very rash decision indeed. but of course, when the factories close down and the jobs are lost there wont be any pollution, so mission accomplished there.
ReplyDeletePeople had better fix the problems they created as fast as possible, since situation will only get worse and more money will be needed if people don't take decisive action now. But it's also important to find a balance between economic and environmental issue, for we just can't be perfect in both sides and pollution will never be totally eliminated if people want to develop.
ReplyDeleteI feel that going green is a trend in the US where as other countries have been doing this for years. I do feel though that now it is in the interests of the US to become green we will do it quickly. For starters, the US should build windmills in detroit to create manufacturing jobs as the old factories machinery can partially be used to build them. Furthermore, Michigan should be building hydro-electric dams on the coastline, because with the rise in population and the shift from gasoline to electric power cars, michigan could produce energy at a surplus and sell it.
ReplyDelete