Environmental Sustainability and Governance - Term Paper Example

Environmental Sustainability and Governance Name: Institutional Affiliation: Introduction With the increasing levels of global warming, world environmental bodies such as UNEP have been agitating for individual responsibilities in matters of environmental sustainability. In the past one decade, the world has recorded an increased level of temperature, which has led to melting of ice in the arctic regions leading to rising of sea levels (Selin, 2010). Issues surrounding Coal Mining Devastating weather conditions Devastating weather conditions have been experienced in the country and even other parts of the world, an aspect that has necessitated a need to draft sustainable policies that ensure that the country minimizes environmental pollution especially the release of greenhouse gases (Australia, 2001). Here in the country, the government has been found on the crossroads due to varying interests of different parties that participate in environmental pollution. In the case study, coal mining has become a great challenge despite the enormous benefits that it provides to the community. This paper will discuss the governance of coal mining sector and challenges faced by the government in dealing with waste management in the sector. Pollution History of pollution dates back in last decade when coal mining boom hit Australia with different mining companies expressing their interests in the sector. The government had very few laws and regulations to protect the local people from adverse pollution problems that the company could expose them to (Environment Australia, 2002). As a result, coal mining companies took advantage of the gap that existed to exploit the resources without taking the necessary environmental precautions. One notable case is that of West Cliff Coal mine which is near Alppin (Australia, 2001). The company is operated by a subsidiary of BHP Billiton. Since the establishment of the company in 2002, it has been discharging harmful waste materials to Georges River. This has exposed the people who use the river for irrigation to chronic diseases such as cancer because the waste materials contain heavy metals such zinc, copper nickel, lead and even aluminium. The worst thing is that the government is held up because it does not have powers to prosecute the company as it operates under environmental protection licence (Australia, 2002). This licence does not contain limits on substances that pollute the environment being discharged. These harmful substances have had a great impact on the ecosystem for a distance of 15 kilometres downstream. Different officials from the government have visited the company to assess the situation but little has been done to reverse the condition (Australia, 2001). Different environmental groups have aired their grievances concerning the situation but the government have been doing nothing to stop the already worsening conditions. Currently, the national park association is spearheading a civil court case, whichis being brought against the company. The company is protecting its own interest by the misuse of environmental protection licence (Australia, 2001). Analysis of Governance Challenges Value Conflicts Currently, the country has recorded increased activities in the coal-mining sector in the country. The sector is contributing immensely to the growth of the economy but also posing a great threat to environmental health of the country and the world in general. For the sector to be sustainable, it needs to meet the demand of the current generation without compromising the lives of the future generation. Government has been unable to control the sector due to involvement of powerful politicians in the sector an aspect that is making it hard for the government to set up laws that can regulate the sector (Hunt, 2009). One of the greatest challenges that government is facing is the control of the sector especially due to its contribution towards two-speed economy (Durant, Fiorino& O'Leary, 2004). The sector is one of the greatest contributors of employment and revenue. On the other hand, there is a notion with the local people and administration that they do not benefit directly from these mining companies because the employees of these companies spend their money elsewhere. Most of multinational companies involved in this sector have been criticized because of how they spend their revenue (South Australia, 2004). Most of the revenue collected from the mining products is spend in developing other economies such as China. Local people who claim that FIFO workers uses the community services but invest their income elsewhere have raised this concern. Coal mining companies are participating in improvement of infrastructure in the country. In the past decade, the demand for better roads and housing has escalated tremendously especially with increasing numbers of mining workers in areas such as Queensland’s Bowen Basin. Government has been put under pressure to provide proper housing to people living in these areas but the entry of mining companies, which are willing to provide its labour force house with cheaper and affordable houses (South Australia, 2004). This factor has made it hard for the government to set up policies that will discourage investors in this sector because of the impact that such a move would have to the general economy and population. There are personal interest that are making it hard for the government to intervene in reduce environmental degradation acts by the coal mining sector (Gottweis & Petersen, 2008). Australian Politicians own some of the major coal mining companies. These politicians are the lawmakers and are therefore likely to disapprove any move that will negatively affect the profits of their country. Other companies are owned by powerful individuals who have mega investments in the country and any move that might affect their country may lead to withdrawal of some of the crucial services that they offer to the public. This might affect the performance of the government. Disagreement by different institutions is affecting policymaking (Durant, Fiorino& O'Leary, 2004). Different sections of government have different agenda on how to go about the issue in order to protect the environment. Although different groups have been agitating for better policies in order to prevent the increasing levels of pollution, government is balancing the benefits accrued from mining sector. Contested Knowledge When the laws were being set, the country mineral exploitation was so low but currently, the level of mining has improved. Many of these laws were set to protect small companies but the entry of multinational companies in the sectors has led to the misuse of these laws. Effort by different government agencies to push for a reprieve from these laws has become futile because some of those who set up these laws had some special knowledge on their impacts. The amendments o some of the existing stiff policies are reducing the government ability to fight environmental pollution. Many policy makers who have interests in mining areas have been pushing for different amendments on some laws that prevent pollution on the expense of the public (Kotzé & Paterson, 2009). In an example, the move by some policy makers in New South Wales to make changes to mine approvals would reduce air standards in the country. This could have a great impact on the health of some people. Some of the proposed changes include putting more emphasis on the economic benefits accrued from mining rather than emphasizing on both social and economic costs. In addition, the proposed changes plan to alter on how air pollution is measured. Institutional Barriers Monopolism Monopolism is one key example of an institutional barrier that poses difficulty in environmental governance. When a company becomes a monopolist, it becomes difficult to control it. Therefore, Most of the mining companies in the country operate as monopolies and thus, the government has very little control over them. They have come up with their own laws which they have implemented and which they follow. Therefore, it is difficult for the government to cut them out of the market completely (Hunt, 2009). Monopolist mining companies dominate the market in different ways and thus, the industry is not similar to other industries where one company can be removed from the market and other companies remain to operate. In the case of the mining industry, the institutions have set barriers where, removal of one from the industry would lead to total closure of the whole industry. Consequently, the country would be deprived of all the benefits that were accruing from mining. Mining institutions have also set barriers such as obtaining favour from the government. For instance, a high quantity of exports from Australia comes from mining products. These include products such as jewellery, petroleum products and other raw minerals. Therefore, the companies have managed to convince the environmental governance bodies that indeed the industry has massive benefits to the country (Breton, 2007). These exports have helped the country to raise its national income and to have a positive Gross National Product (GNP). Therefore, the key institutional barrier in this case is that the companies have convinced the governing bodies that the pollution effects are less as compared to the benefits reaped from the business. However, the issue is that the society has different views about the benefits derived from this industry. People have competing interests and thus, it becomes difficult for the government to make effective decisions (Hempel, 1996). Competing interests The issue of competing interests arises from the fact that individuals in a country have different interests and each party wants his or her interests to prosper (Heathcote, 2004). For instance, individuals in the agricultural industry will be the most affected by pollution effects arising from the mining industry. This is due to factors such as acid rain and changes of climate. Therefore, for such parties whose major interest is to make profits from agriculture, it would be better for the mining industry to be stopped. On the other hand, for other individuals such as persons employed in the coal mining industry, their key interest is to earn income from the work (South Australia, 2004). Therefore, for such individuals, it would be better for the mining industry to continue despite its pollution effects in order to provide them with employment. From these two cases, it is clear that the country is faced with the issue of competing interests. The puts a very heavy burden on the government since, environmental governance bodies cannot satisfy all individuals (Kotzé & Paterson, 2009). This is because, the country benefits from both cases. For instance, in the case of the agricultural industry, the government will look at the issue from the point of view that continuity of the mining industry might lead to collapse of the agricultural industry (Jessup & Rubenstein, 2012). On the other hand, in the case of employment creation, the government will look at it from the point of view that without the mining industry there will be increased unemployment in the country. This could have detrimental effects on the economy such as an increase in the crime rate, underutilization of manpower and low per capita income. Therefore, while analysing all these factors environmental governance is faced by a major challenge of deciding which side to take. Conclusion Environmental governance indeed faces a key challenge in making decisions about issues that affect the whole society. One clear thing is that; issues affecting the environment are externalities and thus, the costs incurred from such as pollution cannot be divided to individuals in the society. In addition, externalities imply that the government cannot measure or weigh the different effects experienced by individuals in the society. This is because; the effects of the externalities will not be similar. While some individuals will be affected more, others will be affected less (Measham &Lockie, 2012). Therefore, in order to make informed decisions, the government has to understand the level with which each individual is affected in the society. In addition, the attitudes and perceptions of the majority are also essential in deciding the decision to be made. However, the issue of politicians also rules governing bodies. Therefore, this leads to lack of control since, politicians own and control most of these industries (Prider, 2009). Therefore, in most cases, the voice of the majority is likely to remain unheard. References Australia (2000).Australian environmental technologies in mining. Canberra, ACT: Environment Australia. Australia (2002).Best practice environmental management in mining: Training kit. Canberra: Environment Australia. Australia (1999).Contaminated sites.Canberra: Environment Australia. Australia (2001).Mining and minerals processing in Australia.Canberra: Australian Govt. Pub.Service. Australia (2011).Tax reform: Next steps in Australia. Canberra, A.C.T: The Treasury. Breton, A. (2007). Environmental governance and decentralisation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & O'Leary, R. (2004). Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, and opportunities. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Environment Australia (2002).Best practice environmental management in mining: Training kit. Canberra: Environment Australia. Evans, J. (2012). Environmental governance. Milton Park Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Gottweis, H., & Petersen, A. R. (2008).Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Heathcote, R. L. (2004). Australia. London: Longman, Scientific & Technical. Hempel, L. C. (1996). Environmental governance: The global challenge. Washington, D.C: Island Press. Hunt, M. W. (2009). Mining law in Western Australia. Sydney: Federation Press. International Symposium on Environmental Biogeochemistry, T., Walter, M. R., Ralph, B. J., & Conference on Biogeochemistry in Relation to the Mining Industry and Environmental Pollution (1980).Biogeochemistry of ancient and modern environments: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Environmental Biogeochemistry (ISEB) and, Conference on Biogeochemistry in Relation to the Mining Industry and Environmental Pollution (Leaching Conference), held in Canberra, Australia, 26 August-4 September 1979. Berlin: Springer. Jessup, B., & Rubenstein, K. (2012).Environmental discourses in public and international law. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press. Kotzé, L. J., & Paterson, A. R. (2009).The role of the judiciary in environmental governance: Comparative perspectives.Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Measham, T. B., &Lockie, S. (2012). Risk and social theory in environmental management. Collingwood, Vic: CSIRO Pub. Prider, R. T. (2009).Mining in Western Australia.Nedlands, W.A: University of Western Australia for the Education Committee of the 150th Anniversary Celebrations. Rainnie, A., &Grobbelaar, M. (2005).New regionalism in Australia.Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate. Selin, H. (2010). Global governance of hazardous chemicals: Challenges of multilevel management. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. South Australia (2004).Mine and quarry rehabilitation in South Australia. Adelaide, S. Aust.: Dept. of Mines and Energy. Read More