Environmental Public Policy - Article Example

Environmental public policy Environmental issues have now taken a center stage on both national and international levels. This emanates from the concerns about global warming and the need for green products from industries. In this line, the world’s largest international organization, the United Nations (UN) through its environment protection division has made several strides towards promoting a green, safe, and clean environment for all. The most notable of the UN’s Environmental impact initiatives include providing international guidelines, laws, policies, and regulations to govern as well as direct protection of the environment (Knapco 7-8). However, providing direction on environmental matters is not enough. There should be implementation to the letter of such directions to achieve the intended objective. Deviation from this means constant abuse of environment to the detriment of different vulnerable groups. The detriments include pollution of water and air (which in turn affects life of both fauna and flora thereby interfering greatly with the ecosystem), global warming, diseases (such as breathing problems), poor visibility, harmful products, poor terms and conditions of working, as well as degradation of the environment in general. The latest developments by the UN Environmental impact initiative include inviting nations, cooperates, individuals, families, and even communities to the environmental table to discuss environment issues. This stems out of the realization that environmental conservation efforts need the contribution of these groups as separate, but significant partners in these course (Knapco 10-11). Initially, the environmental laws and jurisdictions recognized only states or nations, but later discovered that there are many players that perpetuate environmental problems and with good engagement they can help in promoting positive as well as profitable environmental practices. Some of the recent conventions that have embraced these perspectives include the Kyoto protocol and The Hague conventions on environment. As much as these are indications of steps towards the right direction, ratification and implementation of these efforts takes the commitment of individual nations, organizations, as well as individuals. This is where the challenge begins, because organizations (such as oil companies) controlling substantial portions of economies are always hesitant (Rushefsky 254). They frequently violate or take time to willingly comply with such accords. The main explanation for this is that implementing these accords is always expensive (involve commitment of large sums of resources) and they exist for different reasons as their core objectives. This is where the debate arises, regarding whether to adopt environmental conservation options or not. The result has been total negligence or partial implementation of the global environmental agenda. The United States of America has been a long-term culprit in contravening the prospects of the global environmental agenda. This is despite the US being one of the major participants in the setting of the global environmental agenda. For instance, even after participating characteristically in the Kyoto protocol, President Bush refused to ratify it (Sanger 1-5). One of the reasons given by his critics was that his action was influenced by his relation with giant oil organizations in the US (Rushefsky 253-254). This action was also against his campaign promises during his election campaigns. However, it is also underscored by the rationalist that it is during Bush’s 8 year administration that many environmental agenda supporting legislations were enacted and implemented. The United States is a good example of a mixed approach country when it comes to its approach towards environmental matters. It began its environmental consideration or agenda in early 1970s when it bowed to pressure from various environment tilted organizations. Through the protest and activities of such organizations, the then President Nixon formed the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that is charged with leading the environmental agenda in the USA. Through its initiatives and activities, substantial strides have been made in environmental protection. Several organizations, alongside the federal and state governments, have environmental policy and codes (Barcott 1-6). Several other initiatives (such as America’s Great Outdoor initiative) that champion the environmental agenda have also emerged. At the Whitehouse, President Carter introduced solar panels at the West Wing as a way of promoting the green energy initiative. However, this was later reversed by his predecessors (President Clinton and President Bush). President Obama, on the other hand, planned to re-introduce the panels at the Whitehouse to show his commitment to the environmental agenda. The hesitation by the USA to implement an agenda they purport to have and engineer can be explained by various factors. The USA exists in an interconnected and global world place where the net effect of environmental agenda implementation or negligence is the sum of the activities from all over the world. Therefore, reluctance by some of the most industrialized countries could also impact on USA’s approach (Graham 194-201). Various countries, especially in terms of industrialization, are competing to occupy the world marketplace and one of the major ways of achieving this is by producing cheaper goods. This means minimal or no effort is directed towards implementing the environmental agenda. The most notorious country is China and its partners in the East Asia. This, coupled with internal USA politics, contributes to mixed efforts towards environmental conservation. This mixed approach to environmental policy happens in the presence of a number of environmental policy options for partners (individuals, organizations and states) to implement. The first option involves putting the economy first. As already mentioned in an intensely competitive global marketplace, the health of a nation’s economy must be on top of the priority list (Watson Institute for International Studies 2-3). Competition from Europe, China, Japan and emerging economic powerhouse countries have forced American companies to strive to regain their position for over two decades. Despite fluctuations America’s economy is still strong and one of the ways of keeping momentum is to divert from or partially implement environmental goals. Choosing this option means withdrawing from the international led agreements and programs on environment. Proponents of this argue that it promotes productivity of the US industries and provide more jobs. At the same time it exempts American companies from the restrictive UN regulations allowing local mechanisms of controlling environmental issues to operate. However, critics find this option even more problematic because its ramifications include undermining the progress made in dealing with environmental issues globally. The USA can lag behind in the expanding scientific field of research. Neglecting environmental aspects today can result in more harm to people, animals, and vegetation in the future. The USA companies also risk losing their reputation on the international market. Another environmental policy option is taking the lead in the green economy. Science and industry now meet at cleaning the environment (Watson Institute for International Studies 4-5). The nations of Japan, Australia, and Western Europe have already embraced this noble course realizing that new markets are emerging for environmentally friendly goods. These countries are buying into this by quickly developing ‘green’ technologies. This is not only a new competitive edge, but also a promise for better environmental health for the future generations of a country. Proponents of this option hold that the U.S. will benefit by creating a lead via environmentally sound technologies, thereby generating new jobs. Investing in green energy will help to create future competitive edge and America’s reputation in the world. It will also help clean up the environment, globally. However, critics oppose this on several terms. Acting solely on global environmental policies will undermine collaborative relationships with significant allies and trading partners of the U.S. Developing nations needs the cooperation of the U.S. and other developed countries for them to grow in environmentally sound means. Fierce competition implies that buying blindly into technologies being proven can undermine the noble investment in gas, coal, and oil industries in the U.S. Cleaner environment requires more than green technologies to be achieved. The third option is to promote sustainable development. There is a need to balance between development and environmental conservation (Watson Institute for International Studies 6-7). Poverty, all over the globe, is worsening, resource consumption is at all-time high in industrialized nations, and greenhouse emissions are rising. This means that without that environmental health and economic development are connected further destruction to the environment will cause further development to be impossible. To achieve the balancing act, the U.S. needs to join the efforts of governments, private companies as well as other organizations. Proponents of this option hold that, through this, the U.S. will promote environmental friendly activities in rapidly industrializing poor countries. It will position its leading role in global development and environmental affairs through giving to poor countries. It will support the UN cooperation efforts amongst countries on global environmental issues and other international problems. It will also help in focusing the U.S economic power behind protecting the global environment to support new standard for responsible, fair trade. On the other hand, critics hold that this option will slow USA economic growth due to high levels of bureaucracy and regulations of the UN. Increasing of international aid may cause increase in the U.S. deficit. Developed economies (Japan and Europe) may create unfair competitive edge through this opportunity. Finally, environmental focus requires keeping economic needs as secondary needs. The final option is to protect mother earth. As it can be learnt from the discussion led by the UN on the environment, it is clear that with global warming, deforestation, overpopulation, and pollution increasing the survival of planet is at stake. Therefore, the U.S. together with other nations around the globe needs to pass a healthy planet to the future generations (Watson Institute for International Studies 8-9). This means that drastic measures have to be taken to prevent any further environmental degradation. Proponents hold that through this option, the U.S. will reduce consumption of resource, keeping environment cleaner worldwide and improving health on the planet. Assisting developing countries economically would boost their efforts in solving global environmental problems, hence helping them control population growth. This leads to reduction of pressure on resources, which is needed for the welfare of future generation. It is also important to protect biodiverse areas for future use (such as medicine). However, critics find this endeavor problematic as a number of environmental regulations and increased government spending may drag the economy in the future. Exclusive focus on environmental issues will particularly derail poor countries from important economic development needs. As way of creating and maintaining a competitive edge, the U.S. may be reluctant to develop new technologies that other countries can use as well. Ultimately, by giving the UN more power on environmental policy means the U.S. will be giving up power to govern its country’s water, air and land. In summary, having and implementing an environmental policy is not an option to any country including the U.S. To this extent, there are many options available for a country to ensure that it is environmental policy compliant. These options generally require that a country puts environmental policy agenda on its priority list. This involves taking measures that will help her protect and safeguard the beauty, endowments and safety of the planet earth for the future generation (Watson Institute for International Studies 1-9). These measures must be taken both individually and collaboratively (through cooperation with other countries). This invites working with the UN and other partners but in a careful manner not to interfere with the country’s sovereignty, competitive edge, and economic focus. Therefore, a balancing act between environmental health and economic development without losing accountability to the today’s and tomorrow’s generations is the main challenge to nations and other partners in implementing environmental policy agenda. Works Cited Barcott, Bruce. ""Changing All the Rules"." The New York Times (2004): 1-6. Print. Graham, John. "Bush: On the Home Front." Graham, John. Cleaner Air, Warmer Climate. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, (2010): 194-201. Print. Knapco. Environmental Policy: Preventing and reducing harmful effects on nature and natural resources by plant protection agaiunst pests, including pestcides use. Ohio: Ohio State University, (2013): 7-11. Print. Rushefsky, Mark E. Public Policy in the United States at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., (2002): 253-254. Print. Sanger, David E. ""Bush Will Continue to Oppose Kyoto Pact on Global Warming"." The New York Times (2001): 1-5. Print. Watson Institute for International Studies. "Option in Brief." Watson Institute for International Studies. Global Environmental Problems: Implications for U.S. Policy. Brown University: Watson Institute for International Studies, (2013):1-9 . Print. Read More