It would surprise many to hear that in terms of lake and river contamination, agriculture is by far a worse offender than industry or any other sector. Should we jump to convict this repeat offender or instead consider the issues involved? And how can we apply the world’s environmental principles to evaluate the truth of the matter? Kevin P. Craver evaluates the problem posed by agriculture in “Ground Control: Farmers part of the problem, solution to water pollution”.
Agriculture is clearly humanity’s most necessary occupation. Until we go back to hunting with bows and arrows, farming crops and raising food animals will be necessary to support the population of Earth. However, there are some serious pollution problems involved. The nitrogen in fertilizer used by the majority of agribusinesses in America causes algal blooms, which in turn lead to eutrophication of lakes. This is a serious problem and threat to lake ecosystems and wildlife. Phosphorous is an additional pollutant that does this as well. The chemicals in pesticides pose serious environmental threats as well.
Agriculture is a tricky issue, though, because it is extremely necessary. To control the negative environmental effects, one must mediate the effects with technologies and concepts instead of taxes. One effort to do such is using filter strips or buffers in between agricultural area and water drainage, so that the water is filtered before draining into watersheds. This mitigates some of the strong problems caused by water pollution. As well, state environmental agencies issue discharge permits to large agribusinesses like factory farms to limit pollution.
However, many farmers haven’t implemented these precautions, and Craver says that the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the manpower or funding to properly monitor compliance. Regulation seems to be the most important control to runaway pollution, and it isn’t being done properly in the United States.
To think long term about the situation, policy makers should consider the wellbeing of future generations as well as that of the farmers. Explained in the sustainability principle is the idea that regulations should be made to protect not only economic growth of those living in the present, but the health and rights of those living in the future. In this vein, several other things should be considered in farming. Using up the soil and depleting nutrients is another unsustainable practice that should be curbed in terms of protecting the rights of future generations of farmers.
The author of this article comments that within the last 20 years environmental impact on water has gone down significantly. That being said, improvements can not stop now. Technological progress has made available many new methods to reduce water contamination. All that remains is to implement them.
We can conclude that agriculture is a necessary evil. There are many ways to reduce it’s impact, but regulations on monitoring and implementation of meditation technologies is an important step.
References
Craver, Kevin P. Oct 24, 2009. Ground Control: Farmers part of the problem, solution to water pollution. Northwest Herald. Accessed Nov 25, 2009 from http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2009/10/22/r_fx2rzrrprsyqyg0w9h0atq/index.xml
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Own The Water, Own The World
Alberta is planning to start selling off it’s fresh water to make a profit. This is a very questionable policy and has not yet been proposed but it is not expected to go well with the public when it is introduced. This is a plan that has not yet been used buy any Canadian province and is very controversial. This is an idea of selling something that is publically used and owned and making it private. In a country like Canada where everything is equal and most things are free, like healthcare, taking away our water may very well be an obstruction of justice.
If Alberta starts selling water this will open the doors for the whole country to start selling their water as well. Water could be sold and taken to places where there is a water shortage. In some ways this would be good because it would help suffering people but shipping off all that water would be very expensive and could cause Canadians to become short of water. The government could make a lot of money selling off water. But if the water is sold, the owner can do anything they want with the water and the government can do nothing to legally stop them.
If water were to be sold privately the world would be ruled by the richest people living on it. The people with the most money would purchase all the water and would start selling it off for more than even they bought it for. Nobody would be able to prevent this and with water being necessary for survival I’m sure that nobody would hesitate to go out and purchase a few liters. All these liters would add up and many families would be put into debt but still have to pay for their water. Even more problems would occur when you need to buy extra water for showering and watering plants or crops or any other things that involve water. If all the water in the world was owned by one person, that one person would rule the own world.
If Alberta starts selling water this will open the doors for the whole country to start selling their water as well. Water could be sold and taken to places where there is a water shortage. In some ways this would be good because it would help suffering people but shipping off all that water would be very expensive and could cause Canadians to become short of water. The government could make a lot of money selling off water. But if the water is sold, the owner can do anything they want with the water and the government can do nothing to legally stop them.
If water were to be sold privately the world would be ruled by the richest people living on it. The people with the most money would purchase all the water and would start selling it off for more than even they bought it for. Nobody would be able to prevent this and with water being necessary for survival I’m sure that nobody would hesitate to go out and purchase a few liters. All these liters would add up and many families would be put into debt but still have to pay for their water. Even more problems would occur when you need to buy extra water for showering and watering plants or crops or any other things that involve water. If all the water in the world was owned by one person, that one person would rule the own world.
Is access to clean drinking water a human right?
Water covers 90% of the earth’s surface and everyone needs more than a cup of it.
By Samantha Zaluski
Around one billion people across the world only have access to dirty and unsafe drinking water. A growing movement is making a huge effort to make clean water accessible a universal human right because of the increasing scarcity of fresh water. This decrease in resources is due to climate change and population growth. Guaranteeing an individuals’ right to have access to water is now a constitutional or legal provision in approximately thirty countries, many more than just a couple a few years past. Determining that water is a right could give populations a mechanism to use to counter their government. The article “Is access to clean water a basic human right?” by Yigal Schleifer raise many questions including need versus right, public versus private use, public versus private delivery of water and ownership across political boundaries.
The need for something and the right to something implies different things. Dictionary.com states, a need “is to be necessary” and human right is “any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere”.A need is something that is necessary, and a human right is a need that cannot be interfered with by the government. As for water, it is essential for life and without it humans cannot survive. Therefore water is a right and should be accessible to all, and governments should not be permitted to interfere with this need.
Water is used both publicly, by individuals and the governments that represent them, and privately by businesses. Finding the right balance of public and private use is the key. Since there is only so much water, the amount used must be shared by these two groups, with the priority however going to individuals. Not until all individuals have sufficient water, should water be given to businesses.
Political boundaries are often made without regards to how water flows. Most rivers pass through more than one country. Many lakes are owned by more than one nation. Nations have always fought over land and now increasingly over water because it is becoming such a scarce resource. Rather than water being owned by nations, I think ownership should be shared by all those nations whose land carries any portion of the lake or river. Then decisions about water use would need to be based around each water body or river, rather than by one country or another. A watershed is the region where a river or stream drains. One possibility would be that borders used for making resource decisions about water, could be based on watershed boundaries. Making boundaries more natural than political may lead to more environmentally sound ways of ensuring that everyone has fair access to the water they have the right to.
Unquestionably access to sufficient clean water is a human right. How to ensure that this right is respected is a complex management issue that will require countries to unite and begin to think differently. It is not an issue that any one country can resolve in isolation. Hopefully governments are able to show strong leadership and work towards this end, before more millions of people die from lack of clean water.
Reference
Schleifer,Yigal. “Is access to clean water a basic human right?” Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. March 19, 2009. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0319/p06s01-woeu.html
Preventing Water Shortages
by Laura Van Vliet
The Kingdom of Tonga is located in the South Pacific Ocean, an archipelago populated by approximately 100,000 people. The geography of the nation makes it especially vulnerable to environmental changes, particularly climate change and rising sea levels. An article by the Tonga Broadcasting Commission outlines recent inquest into the idea of reducing environmental impact by water recycling. The efforts of the Tongans, though not yet in effect, reflect recent fears of rising ocean levels and shortages of fresh water.
The article states that the recycling of waste water has been suggested as a way to prevent future water shortages. While counterarguments within the article report that there is no real danger of water shortages, as the underground reservoir constantly recharges itself and there are high levels of precipitation, the precautionary principle argues that despite this, efforts should be taken to reduce water usage. As the Tongan population continues to grow, water usage will increase, and it is unknown if the water supply will be large enough to support this or if the surrounding ecosystems will be negatively impacted because of water is being taken out of the natural environment for human use. Water recycling is an easy solution to this problem, at least partially, preventing unknown consequences resulting from overuse of an increasingly precious resource.
Another concept which must be considered is the principle of sustainability. Future generations may suffer if our inaction today causes shortages, which bring up questions of intergenerational equity. Future generations have the same right to fresh water and adequate resources as those alive today, and we must strive to ensure this takes place. Water usage, therefore, must be at a sustainable level, equilibrium must be established at which we know that future generations will have access to the resource. Rising sea levels may affect the fresh water supply, pushing the water up and potentially over the brink of the reservoir, wasting the water supply. This, coupled with increased water demand as population increases, may mean that current sustainable levels of water use may no longer be sustainable in the future. Less water intake may be required in order to maintain the health of our ecosystems, and ensure that in the future we are prepared for and can guard against water shortages. This is another excellent reason for the Tongan nation to implement waste water recycling programs.
In conclusion, the waste water recycling program suggested for implementation in Tonga is a program which should be put into place. When one analyzes the risks for the future, such as decreased water availability due to climate change or overpopulation, and applies the principles of sustainability and precautionary thinking, it is the logical choice.
References
Tonga Broadcasting Commission. Recycling to Prevent Water Shortage. 24 November 2009. Accessed on: 25 November 2009. Available at: http://69.64.79.247/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1927&Itemid=57
The Kingdom of Tonga is located in the South Pacific Ocean, an archipelago populated by approximately 100,000 people. The geography of the nation makes it especially vulnerable to environmental changes, particularly climate change and rising sea levels. An article by the Tonga Broadcasting Commission outlines recent inquest into the idea of reducing environmental impact by water recycling. The efforts of the Tongans, though not yet in effect, reflect recent fears of rising ocean levels and shortages of fresh water.
The article states that the recycling of waste water has been suggested as a way to prevent future water shortages. While counterarguments within the article report that there is no real danger of water shortages, as the underground reservoir constantly recharges itself and there are high levels of precipitation, the precautionary principle argues that despite this, efforts should be taken to reduce water usage. As the Tongan population continues to grow, water usage will increase, and it is unknown if the water supply will be large enough to support this or if the surrounding ecosystems will be negatively impacted because of water is being taken out of the natural environment for human use. Water recycling is an easy solution to this problem, at least partially, preventing unknown consequences resulting from overuse of an increasingly precious resource.
Another concept which must be considered is the principle of sustainability. Future generations may suffer if our inaction today causes shortages, which bring up questions of intergenerational equity. Future generations have the same right to fresh water and adequate resources as those alive today, and we must strive to ensure this takes place. Water usage, therefore, must be at a sustainable level, equilibrium must be established at which we know that future generations will have access to the resource. Rising sea levels may affect the fresh water supply, pushing the water up and potentially over the brink of the reservoir, wasting the water supply. This, coupled with increased water demand as population increases, may mean that current sustainable levels of water use may no longer be sustainable in the future. Less water intake may be required in order to maintain the health of our ecosystems, and ensure that in the future we are prepared for and can guard against water shortages. This is another excellent reason for the Tongan nation to implement waste water recycling programs.
In conclusion, the waste water recycling program suggested for implementation in Tonga is a program which should be put into place. When one analyzes the risks for the future, such as decreased water availability due to climate change or overpopulation, and applies the principles of sustainability and precautionary thinking, it is the logical choice.
References
Tonga Broadcasting Commission. Recycling to Prevent Water Shortage. 24 November 2009. Accessed on: 25 November 2009. Available at: http://69.64.79.247/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1927&Itemid=57
Free Water
Country News of mmgnetwork posted a journal article titled “Temporary water price drops” written by Sophie Burns. The article explains the effects of decrease in price for temporary water that has given opportunities for things to occur. For example the rice and dairy farmers are beginning to increase, due to the lower price of water. The reason for this is because water is at an affordable price; that helps the farmers purchase more water to help increase their supply. In addition to the increase supply, the profits will also increase since more of the product can be produce, this leads to a lower overall selling price.
After reading the article, it occurred to me this can be linked to the chapter 13 of the book “Environmental Principles and Policies – Quotas, Trades, Offsets, and Banks.” In the introduction of the chapter it illustrates the idea that every resource must have a price set. Without a price resources can be used freely and abused with no risk to them; whoever is able to obtain the resource first will have the most. However when a price is placed on the resource can be easily controlled and managed to prevent exploitation.
I agree with the books ideas; yes it may be true if a certain resource if not controlled will be abused to the point where there is no more. But in special cases they can be seen as beneficial but it has its limitations, here is a scenario:
Take the same scenario of the rice and dairy farmers and provide them a free source of water. This would allow them to increase their own profits by producing more resources to sell. Using those profits, they are able to purchase modern technology to help them efficiently make they’re crops. Since farmers are already poor relative to other jobs with the amount of work, this would be very beneficial. However this is nowhere near possible since the water can be abused by the farmer easily. The water would not be distributed evenly; perhaps it could drain the fertile soil of its fertility, and erode the soil. It’s a possibility that this will occur if the farmer is given free source of water.
The emphasis the book is trying to make is that when a resource is placed with a price tag, it is not so profits are made. But a way of allocating the resources so they do not deplete. This is the incentive to check with ourselves if we really need the resource. The definition of value in economic terms is: something has value when the willingness to pay is present, when the willingness to pay is not then it has no value. If something has no value to us (buyer) we wouldn’t want to spend large quantities of money on it. Overall the idea of using economics to allocate our resources is a great method to sustain our resources.
Reference:
Burns, Sophie. "Temporary Water Price Drops." Country News - McPherson Media Group. Web. 24 Nov. 2009..
Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.
After reading the article, it occurred to me this can be linked to the chapter 13 of the book “Environmental Principles and Policies – Quotas, Trades, Offsets, and Banks.” In the introduction of the chapter it illustrates the idea that every resource must have a price set. Without a price resources can be used freely and abused with no risk to them; whoever is able to obtain the resource first will have the most. However when a price is placed on the resource can be easily controlled and managed to prevent exploitation.
I agree with the books ideas; yes it may be true if a certain resource if not controlled will be abused to the point where there is no more. But in special cases they can be seen as beneficial but it has its limitations, here is a scenario:
Take the same scenario of the rice and dairy farmers and provide them a free source of water. This would allow them to increase their own profits by producing more resources to sell. Using those profits, they are able to purchase modern technology to help them efficiently make they’re crops. Since farmers are already poor relative to other jobs with the amount of work, this would be very beneficial. However this is nowhere near possible since the water can be abused by the farmer easily. The water would not be distributed evenly; perhaps it could drain the fertile soil of its fertility, and erode the soil. It’s a possibility that this will occur if the farmer is given free source of water.
The emphasis the book is trying to make is that when a resource is placed with a price tag, it is not so profits are made. But a way of allocating the resources so they do not deplete. This is the incentive to check with ourselves if we really need the resource. The definition of value in economic terms is: something has value when the willingness to pay is present, when the willingness to pay is not then it has no value. If something has no value to us (buyer) we wouldn’t want to spend large quantities of money on it. Overall the idea of using economics to allocate our resources is a great method to sustain our resources.
Reference:
Burns, Sophie. "Temporary Water Price Drops." Country News - McPherson Media Group. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.
Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.
Water or War?
By Geneviève Lalonde
In the past, the city of Yemen was able to retrieve water by grinding crevasses in the rocks to capture the rainfall. Unfortunately, with climate change arising, this method became less and less efficient. This caused the population to go searching underground. They went looking deeper in the water aquifers and since 1998, the reserves are seen decreasing. Some families must wait six weeks until they get flowing water through their taps. With the instability along the borders of Saudi Arabia, this issue has been set aside.
The article by Peter Kenyon entitled “Obscured By War, Water Crisis Looms In Yemen” demonstrates that many different environmental policies are not being followed. There are two main policies missing namely the equity principle and the Market for conservation principle in order to ensure water is distributed in a fair way to all of the population. The government must step in and, amongst other, create incentives to ensure water is preserved ultimately leading to a reintroduction of the more traditional ways to collect water.
The article implies that the agriculture sector in Yemen uses up 85 percent of its available water and rather inefficiently. If we take into account the equity principle, there is a lack of fairness in this system. As Anwer Sahouly, the water expert for Yemen’s water reform effort states, “all civilization has grown around water. Water is life”. If water is life, by allowing water to be extracted at unfair proportions by the farmers, we are depriving the less fortunate people of Yemen from living. All this indicates a faulty equity plan.
There are many other matters that are “corrupt” about this system. In the 1970’s, some international monetary groups introduced incentives to the farmers. These incentives introduced them to drilling wells and the use of underground aquifers instead of the traditional rainwater captured crops. As these aquifer resources are nearing depletion, Kenyon reports “Yemenis are responding by drilling more and more illegal wells and pumping more water than ever”. The situation appears nearly out of control.
Under the Markets for conservation principle, we know that many countries have achieved remarkable results through water trading and incentives. A proper comparison for this issue would be what was done in rural Australia. It brought in an initiative to insure a secure water trading system. As our textbook, Environmental principles and policies by Sharon Beder, describes “water trading will enable those who can make the most money out of the water buy it and those who make less money sell it”. This worked in Australia because during drought it was more profitable for farmers to sell their water entitlements then to attempt to grow crops. For Yemen, this may mean introducing incentives for the Yemeni farmers to trade in a more proper manner. It may also mean being more forceful in reducing illegal drilling.
If the government took action, they could achieve this in a multitude of ways. They could introduce a water trading market. A market could introduce a proper value for the water, which would allow the water to be better allocated. As Beder demonstrates water trading has been successful in places such as Chile, Mexico, Peru, Australia as well as the USA where many of these places have implemented a price on water. They will then be forced to either make use of every last drop, or find resourceful ways of capturing the water to make a profit.
Clearly the Yemeni urban population is suffering and the government has made few signs of discouraging these actions to date. With the border rebellion crisis being their number one priority, they might not attend to it for a while. Unless proper incentives and policies are put in place soon, the growing population and shrinking water supply of Yemen will lead to a crisis situation.
References
Obscured By War, Water Crisis Looms In Yemen,
by Peter Kenyon - November 20th 2009
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120619082&sc=emaf
Environmental Principles and Policies – an interdisciplinary introduction
By Sharon Beder
The Polluters Pay in Chattanooga
In the article “Quality at a cost: Storm water rates go up to fend off expected fed fines” by Dave Flessner and Cliff Hightower, they explain the problems that Chattanooga, Tennessee is experiencing involving their polluted rainwater runoff. The taxpayers of Chattanooga have paid more than $80 million in storm water fees over the past 16 years, but federal regulators say the city is still facing pollution problems from rainwater runoff. The city’s storm water system is not in compliance with the Clean Water Act standards and therefore, they will need to invest in a more environmentally friendly system to accommodate the polluted rainwater. The Tennessee department of Environment and Conservation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are preparing to impose a $50 million fine to the city if they do not deal with this problem quickly.
In order to improve their storm water runoff, the city of Chattanooga is preparing to introduce several procedures that will hopefully allow them to avoid the $50 million fine. The city is looking beyond single source polluters and is now focusing more on runoff across the city. They believe this will be more effective in reducing the potential of contaminated runoff. They have determined that runoff from parking lots, rooftops and other developed properties add silt, oil, pesticides and other contaminants to the water, which accounts for 85% of pollution in rivers and streams. Increased storm water fees will be implemented, with the income from this new tax, contributing towards more efficient engineering and inspections. Residential fees will increase from $36 to $115.50 a year and increased inspections of residential properties will occur.
In an inspection from September 2008, 57 violations of the city’s storm water permit were identified. The city never had any reason to spend their money on something that people don’t see and they determined that it was not a priority. If the polluter pays principle was never implemented, the city may never have changed their ways. The threat of a huge fine is causing them to pull out all the stops in order to reduce their impact on the environment.
There are several ways in which measures to protect the environment can have an impact on equity. There are three main aspects of equity that are addressed in the equity principle: people’s rights must be respected, people deserve fairness, and that people’s needs should be met and their contribution to meeting these needs should be based on their ability to do so. In this situation, taxes are increased due to the implementation of the polluter pays principle. These taxes are being imposed on all city residents, including a certain section of society whose members may not be able to afford these extra costs. Residents are expected to pay an extra $79 a year and there may be many people that cannot afford this increase. This is also causing problems for small business owners. The owner of a mobile home park had her storm water bill increase from $1324 to $5299 and she doesn’t know how she will deal with this extra cost.
The city of Chattanooga must address their issues with contaminated storm water runoff in order to protect the environment that they have been degrading for so many years. By implementing the polluter pays principle, the city is introducing fines to individual residences and other developed properties who are contributing to the problem. They have increased the tax for storm water runoff, expecting to use this extra income for increased inspections and more effective engineering. However, there are many people that cannot afford these increased costs. The equity principle states that people’s needs should be met and their contribution to meeting these needs should be based on their ability to do so. Therefore, it would be constructive if the city could compensate those with less money with some kind of extra income support. Before making a decision, all governments need to analyze the positive and negative outcomes of their implemented policy.
Flessner, D. & Hightower, C. November 22, 2009. Quality at a cost: Stormwater rates go up to fend off expected fed fines. Chattanooga Times Free Press. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/nov/22/quality-at-a-cost-stormwater-rates-go-up-to-fend/
Friday, November 20, 2009
Lakes into Garbage Dumps?
By Samantha Zaluski
Sixteen lakes across Canada are proposed to be redefined as mine tailing ponds or dump sites. The residences around the lakes are concerned about the environmental and health effects of the chemicals. However the lakes are perfect basins to submerge tailings from near by mining operations. In the article, " Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites", Terry Milewski discusses the regulatory control of the laws and the protest from the people. This article discusses the current regulatory situation, how economic incentives could be used instead, and evaluates which is the better alternative.
In Canada, the Fisheries act states that it is illegal to dispose of any dangerous chemical into waters with fish. The Mining Act Schedule Two states that the federal government can rename a lake an area for trailing waste. Catherine Coumans, a spokeswoman for the environmental group Mining Watch, says that it is making it too easy for mining companies to reclassify lakes and other waters as mine dump sites because of the government is increasingly. Therefore it is cheaper for mining companies to not build dumps rather they ask the government to convert a lake into one. There is obviously a loophole in the laws.
There are different ways to achieve environmental protection and governmental controls: regulations and economic incentives, making the polluters accountable for any damages created by their actions. Regulatory controls dictate implementing a certain way to reduce or eliminate pollution. Economic incentives motivate companies to develop their own way to reduce pollutants to a prescribed level and fine them if they exceed the limit, or reward them if they stay below the limits. Another economic method is to impose a tax on damages caused by pollution. Another choice would be for the government to offer money to mining companies to develop environmentally sound tailings disposal methods.
With economic incentives businesses can determine the best method to reduce or eliminate pollution, encouraging technological innovation. Each company is individually responsible for whether or not they are rewarded, taxed or fined.
References
Anderson, Dawn. “Regulatory Policy vs Economic Incentives”. The Economist.1989 http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.ph p/1329.html
Milewski, Terry. “Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites”. CBC News. 2008. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/16/condemned-lakes.html
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Drilling in New York's Watersheds
The water supply for New York City comes unfiltered from pristine, upstate watersheds, and according to Alison Levy of The Huffington Post, the quality of water is said to be among the best in the world. She writes that nine million people living in New York depend on the water coming from these reservoirs. However, there exists in this same area vast reserves of natural gas, which drilling companies hope to exploit. The natural gas is trapped between layers of rock deep underground, and the extraction process, called ‘fracking’, involves shooting a high pressure mixture of sand, water, and toxic chemicals into the ground. New Yorkers are concerned about the possibility of this noxious fluid contaminating the watershed and therefore their water supply.
The state of New York is addressing the possibility of placing regulations on extraction, after hearing the public’s concerns. A ban was called for by many New Yorkers and environmental organizations, but is currently not a likely option. Instead, the Department of Environmental Conservation would regulate the amount of drilling allowed in the state, likely by the selective approval and the strict monitoring of drilling projects. The article is not specific in the type of regulation that may be implemented, but for other similar projects such as Alberta’s oil sands, a policy of monitoring, environmental impact assessments, and selective approval applies.
Another alternative to regulation in handling a sensitive environmental issue like this one is to introduce economic incentives. Where there is potential for massive environmental damage, a bonding system is necessary, which would have potential polluters place in escrow an amount of money big enough to deal with the mess. If contamination of the watershed occurs, the city of New York would have to set up a filtration system, which would cost $10 billion dollars to start and $100 million each year for maintenance. Potential drillers would have to have this capital, which is unreachable. Because of this, a bonding system would have to be overlooked, which would compromise the responsibility of potential drillers, and potential polluters. A tax on damage done (such as contamination) seems inappropriate in this case, as even a low amount of toxic chemicals in the state’s groundwater would incur enormous costs. As a tax would not work, and a bonding system would not work, it leaves to be seen what kind of economic incentives would be appropriate and feasible in this particular case.
In many situations, using such economic incentives can be economically beneficial in comparison to regulation. In this case, it could be argued that the optimal level of pollution is zero, since contamination of New York’s water supply would result in the immense costs of installing a filtration system. A case with an optimal pollution level of zero or close to zero is generally seen to be better controlled with regulation than with economic incentives. As well, one of the benefits of using economic incentives rather than government regulation is that it encourages research and development into abatement technologies, or technology that allows companies to avoid the costs they pay in taxes (or similar economic incentives). However, this situation does not involve making technologies to lower contamination rates, but immediately introduce technologies to avoid all possible contamination.
The potential environmental and economic damage that natural gas extraction poses to the city and watersheds of New York makes careful governmental policies necessary. In this case, regulation seems to be the safest and most viable solution, to make proper and protective use of resources. However, this is all economic reasoning, which may not satisfy New Yorkers outraged that access to their most basic need, clean water, was being threatened.
References:
Levy, Alison Rose. "Protecting New York City's Water Supply from Gas Companies." The Huffington Post. Nov 11, 2009. Accessed Nov 18, 2009 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/protecting-new-york-citys_b_354264.html
The state of New York is addressing the possibility of placing regulations on extraction, after hearing the public’s concerns. A ban was called for by many New Yorkers and environmental organizations, but is currently not a likely option. Instead, the Department of Environmental Conservation would regulate the amount of drilling allowed in the state, likely by the selective approval and the strict monitoring of drilling projects. The article is not specific in the type of regulation that may be implemented, but for other similar projects such as Alberta’s oil sands, a policy of monitoring, environmental impact assessments, and selective approval applies.
Another alternative to regulation in handling a sensitive environmental issue like this one is to introduce economic incentives. Where there is potential for massive environmental damage, a bonding system is necessary, which would have potential polluters place in escrow an amount of money big enough to deal with the mess. If contamination of the watershed occurs, the city of New York would have to set up a filtration system, which would cost $10 billion dollars to start and $100 million each year for maintenance. Potential drillers would have to have this capital, which is unreachable. Because of this, a bonding system would have to be overlooked, which would compromise the responsibility of potential drillers, and potential polluters. A tax on damage done (such as contamination) seems inappropriate in this case, as even a low amount of toxic chemicals in the state’s groundwater would incur enormous costs. As a tax would not work, and a bonding system would not work, it leaves to be seen what kind of economic incentives would be appropriate and feasible in this particular case.
In many situations, using such economic incentives can be economically beneficial in comparison to regulation. In this case, it could be argued that the optimal level of pollution is zero, since contamination of New York’s water supply would result in the immense costs of installing a filtration system. A case with an optimal pollution level of zero or close to zero is generally seen to be better controlled with regulation than with economic incentives. As well, one of the benefits of using economic incentives rather than government regulation is that it encourages research and development into abatement technologies, or technology that allows companies to avoid the costs they pay in taxes (or similar economic incentives). However, this situation does not involve making technologies to lower contamination rates, but immediately introduce technologies to avoid all possible contamination.
The potential environmental and economic damage that natural gas extraction poses to the city and watersheds of New York makes careful governmental policies necessary. In this case, regulation seems to be the safest and most viable solution, to make proper and protective use of resources. However, this is all economic reasoning, which may not satisfy New Yorkers outraged that access to their most basic need, clean water, was being threatened.
References:
Levy, Alison Rose. "Protecting New York City's Water Supply from Gas Companies." The Huffington Post. Nov 11, 2009. Accessed Nov 18, 2009 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/protecting-new-york-citys_b_354264.html
Is more regulation really the solution?
by Laura Van Vliet
Governmental control of water pollution is crucial in the world in which we live, where pollution would likely reach toxic levels if left unrestrained. There are two main techniques for governments to exert their control, the first is through command and control regulation – in which specific rules and regulations control the amount and type of pollution each company is allowed to produce – and the second is through economic incentives – in which the government motivates companies to reduce pollution using their preferred methods, as long as the specific value is met the companies will not lose money. An article by Yingling Yui, titled “Analysis: Stronger Regulation Needed to Improve Corporate Pollution Record in China,” argues that more regulatory control is needed is China to manage the widespread water pollution which is occurring. In the article, it states that “weak supervision and lousy enforcement in China has been a major passive encouragement...” (Yui 2008) for the industry sector not to perform up to the standards. However, more regulation, detailing more specific environmental measures to be taken by individual companies, is not necessarily the most effective way to solve this problem.
Economic incentives, an important system of controlling industrial pollution, could be effectively used to control water pollution in China. The key to a successful economic incentive program is that the benefits of reducing pollution [by the desired amount] outweigh the costs of doing so. Taxation and the sale and trading of pollution permits are two good ways of creating such a situation. The government in China could ‘print’ and sell (or issue free of cost) a number of permits allowing a certain type and quantity of water pollution, which would be distributed in a fair way among companies. The industry would then have to decrease pollution to the amount specified by the total permits, though they could do it in whichever distribution they pleased – through the buying and selling of the permits. In this way, the most cost effective approach to reducing pollution by the specified amount would be found. This “free market” of pollution permits also removes restrictions on how the pollution is reduced, as opposed to demanding the companies use certain methods of pollution reduction, therefore encouraging the development of new technologies and processes to reduce pollution. Thus, by creating pollution permits, as opposed to regulatory control, China could effectively reduce water pollution.
In my opinion, the policy of economic incentives is the better solution. It is more efficient, effective, and promotes the development of new technologies and processes for environmental protection. While the two different policies have different merits in depending on the situation, in the broad field of Chinese water pollution control, it is improbable that the government will be able to reduce pollution in the most efficient and effective way. Allowing the industry to develop and decide itself on technology and processes, while the government is solely a regulatory body ensuring the pollution abatement occurs, is the best solution.
Thus, of the two major methods of pollution control – economic incentives and regulatory control – I believe that the situation of water pollution in China described by Yingling Yui would be addressed most successfully using economic incentives. The use of ‘pollution permits’ would allow companies to cost-effectively reduce pollution while simultaneously encouraging technological development.
Liu, Yingling. “Analysis: Stronger Regulation Needed to Improve Corporate Pollution Record in China.” Worldwatch Institute. 6 February 2008. Accessed on: 18 February 2009. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5601
Governmental control of water pollution is crucial in the world in which we live, where pollution would likely reach toxic levels if left unrestrained. There are two main techniques for governments to exert their control, the first is through command and control regulation – in which specific rules and regulations control the amount and type of pollution each company is allowed to produce – and the second is through economic incentives – in which the government motivates companies to reduce pollution using their preferred methods, as long as the specific value is met the companies will not lose money. An article by Yingling Yui, titled “Analysis: Stronger Regulation Needed to Improve Corporate Pollution Record in China,” argues that more regulatory control is needed is China to manage the widespread water pollution which is occurring. In the article, it states that “weak supervision and lousy enforcement in China has been a major passive encouragement...” (Yui 2008) for the industry sector not to perform up to the standards. However, more regulation, detailing more specific environmental measures to be taken by individual companies, is not necessarily the most effective way to solve this problem.
Economic incentives, an important system of controlling industrial pollution, could be effectively used to control water pollution in China. The key to a successful economic incentive program is that the benefits of reducing pollution [by the desired amount] outweigh the costs of doing so. Taxation and the sale and trading of pollution permits are two good ways of creating such a situation. The government in China could ‘print’ and sell (or issue free of cost) a number of permits allowing a certain type and quantity of water pollution, which would be distributed in a fair way among companies. The industry would then have to decrease pollution to the amount specified by the total permits, though they could do it in whichever distribution they pleased – through the buying and selling of the permits. In this way, the most cost effective approach to reducing pollution by the specified amount would be found. This “free market” of pollution permits also removes restrictions on how the pollution is reduced, as opposed to demanding the companies use certain methods of pollution reduction, therefore encouraging the development of new technologies and processes to reduce pollution. Thus, by creating pollution permits, as opposed to regulatory control, China could effectively reduce water pollution.
In my opinion, the policy of economic incentives is the better solution. It is more efficient, effective, and promotes the development of new technologies and processes for environmental protection. While the two different policies have different merits in depending on the situation, in the broad field of Chinese water pollution control, it is improbable that the government will be able to reduce pollution in the most efficient and effective way. Allowing the industry to develop and decide itself on technology and processes, while the government is solely a regulatory body ensuring the pollution abatement occurs, is the best solution.
Thus, of the two major methods of pollution control – economic incentives and regulatory control – I believe that the situation of water pollution in China described by Yingling Yui would be addressed most successfully using economic incentives. The use of ‘pollution permits’ would allow companies to cost-effectively reduce pollution while simultaneously encouraging technological development.
Liu, Yingling. “Analysis: Stronger Regulation Needed to Improve Corporate Pollution Record in China.” Worldwatch Institute. 6 February 2008. Accessed on: 18 February 2009. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5601
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)