There Is Something Immoral about Buying the Right to Pollute - Essay Example

There is something immoral about buying the right to pollute Name Institution To many people today, cap and trade emissions trading schemes are vitally important, progressive environmental initiatives. The philosopher Michael J. Sandel, however, has maintained that there is something immoral about buying the right to pollute. Critically evaluate Sandel’s arguments Introduction Various concepts are received differently by various individuals and groups depending on what they believe in. Many individuals believe that cap and trade emissions trading schemes are essential environmental initiatives for various reasons. For instance, the system is efficient and allows for the attainment of long-term goals that are linked to reducing emissions. There is also the possibility of enhanced governmental revenue. On the other hand, philosopher Sandel has maintained the fact that there is something immoral about buying the right to pollute. According to Sandel, the cap and trade legislation has negative impacts on the environment. This is more so since making emission credits up for sale is likely to allow rich nations to buy their way out of polluting. Pollution is a bad practice that organizations and countries should not be given an option of having the right to undertake it. Buying the right to pollute is immoral and goes against business ethics. This piece of work will give a critical discussion of the arguments that have been put forth by Sandel and their implications. An overview of the cap and trade concept will also be given as a way of enhancing understanding on the difference opinions involved. Cap and trade To gain a deeper understanding of the topic of discussion, it is worth noting what cap and trade program is all about. This will allow having an informed discussion of the arguments raised by Sandel as they relate to the cap and trade and why Sandel is against the legislation. Cap and trade is a powerful system when it comes to the reduction of pollution in the atmosphere. It entails the government setting the cap across a specific industry of the entire economy and deciding on penalties for violations. Those that advocate for this approach state that it is the best. This is with respect to being environmentally and economically appropriate in restraining emissions that result in global warming. The cap on greenhouse gas emissions is a level that could be proven scientifically. Under this system, organizations are expected to pay penalties whenever they exceed the cap, an aspect that gets stricter over time. On the trade part of the approach, companies are in a position to buy and sell allowances that sanction them to emit a given amount. It is an aspect that offers organizations a strong incentive to save money by cutting down emissions (Moss, 2015). This is a positive move towards conservation of the environment. According to the cap and trade system, the fact that the limits are observed is good enough in preventing high level pollution. Sandel’s arguments There is something immoral about buying the right to pollute. Sandel argues that allowing organizations and nations to buy the right to pollute should be discouraged since it is immoral. This is more so since the rich are in a position to buy their way out of polluting. The legislation creates loopholes that in one way or the other allow rich nations to evade their obligations. For instance, under the Kyoto formula, the United States of America would be in a position to take advantage of the fact that Russia had by then minimized its emissions 30 percent as from 1990. However, it is appropriate to note the manner in which this happened. It was through economic decline rather than energy efficiencies. In this case, the United States could buy excess credits from Russia and go ahead to count them towards meeting their commitments under the treaty (Sandel, 1997). The aspect of turning pollution into a commodity works by reducing the moral stigma linked with it. This could be accompanied by other negative effects. In the event that an organization or nation is fined for being involved in processes that emit excessive pollutants into the environment, it is obvious that the society expresses its judgement that the polluter has not done the right thing or what ought to be done according to business or general ethics. On the other hand, a fee or fine makes pollution seem like a normal thing, like any other cost of doing business such as rent and wages. Wealthy individuals, organizations and countries will take advantage of this provision to pollute the environment since they know that they will be out of the problem just by paying the imposed fee (Moss, 2015). Even the wealthy nations should not be given the chance to buy their way out of global obligations but instead, all the stipulated regulations ought to be followed in the best interest of all. The cap and trade system also undermines the sense of shared responsibility that is required for global cooperation. Many nations make cooperation elusive and for one reason or the other, they have not agreed to control their emissions at all. Their refusal means a lot and can be seen as an aspect that undermines the prospect of an international environmental ethic as can be seen in the pollution trading scheme. According to Sandel, restraining on emissions is a positive aspect. However, including a trading scheme whereby nations are allowed to buy and sell the right to pollute is a wrong move. Despite the fact that the creation of an international market in emission credits is likely to make it easier for nations to meet their obligations under the treaty, it would as well undermine the ethics that should be fostered on the environment (Braaten, Brekke and Rogeberg, 2015). The cap and trade system and carbon trading in particular encourages the industries that are greatly addicted to gas, oil and coal to undertake their processes and procedures just as they did before. This is more so because it is possible to buy cheap offsets or rather carbon credits instead of switching from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. According to Caney (2010), carbon offsets works towards encouraging organizations to cheat and make it easy for those that have been involved in pollution to continue as normal thereby distracting the bigger picture. On the contrary, Braaten, Brekke and Rogeberg (2015) argue that when one firm sells a permit to another firm, the seller will pollute less than the buying firm. Nonetheless, the total pollution will remain the same. Because the two firms want to trade, they both ought to be better off. This results to same level of pollution, lower costs for the two firms, as well as avoidance of direct negative consequences. When assessed on these outcomes, trading seems inoffensive. On the other hand, Sandel is inspired by virtual ethics and as such, being involved in pollution and harming others is unpleasant despite the fact that pollution levels may remain the same. To Sandel, ethics should be a priority in any action if the well-being of all the parties involved is to be observed. Business ethics is an aspect that should always be upheld under all costs and circumstances. There should be no loopholes or allowances for individuals, groups, organizations and even nations. They should not give any excuse for undertaking their processes and procedures in a way that undermines business ethics. Allowing individuals to buy their way out of standard punishment just because they are wealthier is challenging especially to those who may not afford it. According to Sandel, doing something wrong and going ahead to pay the fine should not in any way be seen as morally equivalent to not doing the wrong thing all together. Doing wrong should not be justified more especially if the consequences involved are dire. Just because one may go off a crime by paying some fine does not make the crime a desirable thing especially since the victims could significantly suffer. The statement “There is something immoral about buying the right to pollute” has also be criticized or examined deeply. For instance, Sandel ignores the fact that cap and trade is associated with a lot of benefits. Trading is an aspect that has the potential of allowing for more effective distribution of wealth while at the same time reducing pollution. Trade is also likely to lead to less pollution since nations can realize that they can make money by decreasing pollution, and hence be encouraged to do it even in the future. It is also right to say that in the carbon trading scenario, people or organizations do not buy the right to do wrong or buy the right not to be punished for doing wrong or having committed a crime. Instead, they buy the right to do something that is not wrongful as a result of the resultant extra duty it entails on others against payment (Moss, 2015). This is with regard to keeping or reducing emissions below the limit that they would otherwise be entitled to use. According to Hahn and Stavins (2011), maintaining a stigma on pollution for harmful substance makes sense as opposed to how Sandel view it as a setback. This is more so because the polluters are faced with the option of either putting them into the environment or not. It is however worth noting that with global warming and the activities that lead to it, the choice may not exist. There is need for the development and implementation of new technologies as a way of combating global warming and its effects. Tradability is in a position to make reductions cheaper, an aspect that allows negotiators to bring the legal levels of emissions closer to the fair levels. This is desirable. All manufacturing processes are associated with pollution to a certain level. This means that eradicating pollution completely is impossible and there is need to come up with ways of limiting it. The fact that it is possible to limit it as opposed to eliminate it translates to the possibility of adopting a policy that will trade it off with it economic consequences. Cap and trade qualifies for this. Another argument against Sandel’s statement is that there is no doubt that tradable systems have greatly assisted in phasing leaded gasoline out of the market, an aspect that has made it possible to save a lot of money. Cap and trade programs are also associated with considerable reduction of acid rain while at the same time making great savings (Hahn & Stavins, 2011). A look at these statements indicates that all is not lost when it comes to the policy of cap and trade. Like any other system, it has a fair share of negative and positive attributes. If the positive one could be reinforced and the negative ones handled in an effective manner, then the system will be good to go. According to Environmental Defense Fund (2017), the cap and trade policy has greatly worked towards lowering emissions globally. For this reason, most governments around the globe have adopted it and some are seriously considering it. A good example is California, which has pioneered its own system, an aspect that has resulted to a constant decline in carbon dioxide pollution of the state over the last 10 years. The efforts involve a cap and trade program that was initiated in 2013. Since then, there has been a reduction in the state’s emissions and this is a positive move. The European Union’s Emission trading system is also a program that is credited for capping emissions in the European Union over the years. There could never be a perfect system and hence, it is essential to work with what brings better result for all the parties involved. Even though Sandel is against it based on moral grounds, cap and trade legislation seems to be a necessary step for various nations. It is one of the most beneficial ways through which carbon dioxide and pollution in general could be reduced. The effects of pollution and carbon dioxide in particular are known and failing to take necessary actions with regard to improving the situation can be considered as an ethical crime that will not only affect the current but also the future generations. Cap and trade legislation may not be ideal. This is more so since a solution that is capable of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and not necessitate cost increases for consumer goods and energy would be best placed. However, we cannot deny the fact that in real world, it is difficult to find solutions that are ideal and the best possible program should be adopted and implemented while at the same time seeking for improvements. Rather than living in denial of realities there is need to act in the proper manner and seek for the better good of every party. Conclusion From the above discussion, it is apparent that the concept of cap and trade has both benefits as well as drawbacks especially when examined in relation to its impact on pollution and environment at large. Sandel bases his arguments on the negative attributes associated with cap and trade system. Sandel acknowledges that cap and trade system has its share of benefits but at the same time, he pin points the limitations of the system. However, his main concern is the thought of buying the right to pollute, stating that it is immoral. Generally, most systems face some form of resistance from various parties and cap and trade policy is not an exception. Together with other tradable quotas, cap and trade policy is associated with considerable resistance, which is usually laced with moral indignation. Nonetheless, we cannot deny that it is a program with considerable benefits and has been proven in different places across the globe for instance California. References Braaten, R. H., Brekke, K. A., & Rogeberg, O. (2015). Buying the right to do wrong–An experimental test of moral objections to trading emission permits. Resource and Energy Economics, 42, 110-124. Caney, S. (2010). Markets, morality and climate change: What, if anything, is wrong with emissions trading?. New Political Economy, 15(2), 197-224. Environmental Defense Fund (2017). How cap and trade works. Retrieve from https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works Hahn, R. W., & Stavins, R. N. (2011). The effect of allowance allocations on cap-and-trade system performance. The Journal of Law and Economics, 54(S4), S267-S294. Moss, J. (2015). Climate Change and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sandel, M. J. (1997). It’s immoral to buy the right to pollute. New York Times. Retrieve from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/15/opinion/it-s-immoral-to-buy-the-right-to-pollute.html Read More