The Political Economy of the Environment - Essay Example

Environmental degradation Environmental degradation Introduction Climate degradation is not just a great challenge in the world today, but it is also an epic opportunity. Whenever members of the society rise to challenge climate change via smart solutions, they also unleash a new economic development wave, revitalize local economies and generate jobs. Technology meant for jump-starting a clean energy economy is available. For this technology to work effectively, there is an urge of adopting policies that will curb climate-changing emissions effectively. The base of climate degradation stems as a result of the fact that human beings tend to treat the atmosphere as an unrestricted dumping ground (Boyce, 2002). Nobody asks the polluter for cash so as to pollute the air. The result is increased concentrations of air warming gasses alongside energy system’s maladies. To jump-start an evolution to a clean energy entails above anything else putting a price on the climate-warming emissions. This means that one have to pay so as to dump. The way of making polluters pay that will guarantee emissions reduction is implementing policies or pollution tax. Cap and trade is a good example of a system that can be implemented to curb environmental pollution. Cap and trade obligates a region with responsible limits on the global warming emissions (Farber, 2012). These policies also help in bringing fairness in the society. Environmental degradation may be done by few characters in the society while all share its effects. Discussions are evident on who shares the cost of cleaning up the environment after it has been polluted as the document discusses. Discussion The climate policy or the pollution taxes should be developed in a way that will enhance fairness. The main aim of climate policy should equitably share the climate stewardship’s benefits and the economic burdens. The climate policy needs to redress the injustice of the climate change. Equity and fairness were considered being interchangeable. Equity was considered having both the vertical and horizontal dimensions. These dimensions entailed people in a common situation to be treated equally while those in a different situation to be regarded differently. People who are favorably positioned, the policy, should make sure that they pay more. According to a philosopher by the name Smith, the tax paying is regarded as fair when one pays a tax equivalent to the revenue enjoyed. This implies that those who are a degrading environment to a great extent will have to pay more compared to them who will pollute the environment slightly. It is by this concept that fairness is achieved. Different people can participate in the degrading environment. However, the intensity of pollution may differ. Some of the polluters could be emitting greenhouse gas from only one greenhouse. The other can release untreated gasses from an industry or dispose of dirty water in the river. Another person does not pollute the environment in any way. If the government decides to tax every person pollution tax of equal measure, the one who is emitting the most hazardous gasses will be encouraged to continue degrading the environment (Dinar, 2011). However, when an individual pays tax on the basis of pollution, he or she has caused, it will be fair to everyone. If one did not play any role in degrading the environment, he or she would not be expected to pay anything. On the other hand, those who played a part in polluting the environment pay tax each depending on how far he or she has polluted the environment. This will be fair to every member of the society as well as the environment itself. People will have to develop measures which will help in reducing environment pollution so as to reduce the amount going to pollution tax (Boyce, 2002). The policy will, hence, also help in conservation of the environment. In matters of environmental taxation, equity and fairness cut across even the future or intergenerational equity dimensions. This aspect entails questions like whether it is fair for the current generation to pay tax or expect the future generation to bear the cost of expected future climatic changes. Expecting the future generation to bear the cost of the current generation’s activities is one sign of unfairness. If the current generation is carrying out activities that will affect the environment adversely in future, it will be fair if the current generation bears the cost of their actions (Farber, 2012). This is another aspect that environmental policies or pollution tax help in assuring equity and fairness. Any activity which happens to threaten the environment is taxed for. By so doing the tax, is used to curb the effects before the problem escalates. For example, if people can be allowed to cut the trees without being questioned, the effects might fail to be witnessed today but in future the effects will be felt. With the environmental taxation, people will limit the deforestation aspect. This will in turn bring equity to the future generation (Dinar, 2011). This is because they will not have to bear the cost of the past generation’s activities. Allowing people to pass over the effects of their activities to the future generation means the future generation will be concentrating on amending the effects of the past generation. In the process of solving the effects of the past generation, their activities will pass their effects to the generations that will come after them. If the process continues that way by the third generation, the burden will be too heavy for them to bear. This scenario shows how beneficial the pollution tax is in that people bears the cost of their activities. This acts as relieve to the future generations. By so doing intergenerational equity or fairness will have been realized. In addressing the climatic change aspects, fairness also entails measuring the costs as well as benefits of the policies of climate change mitigation (Khuda & Environmental Survey and Research, 2001). This implies that the current policy makers need to weigh reasonably current costs against the future uncertainties. Environmental degradation entails depletion of both renewable and non-renewable resources. It also entails pollution of water, air and soils. These activities can become a chief source of stress in the society. It can affect social integration indirectly via the constraints it tends to put on the productive activities. It can also have more social impacts directly. Decline in the environment can induce changes in the settlement patterns thus disrupting the social relations that are in existence. It can also accelerate the social stratification or encourage social solidarity as well as stimulate the collective action. The environment has been changed by the activities of human beings nearly everywhere. This means that only the society supporting the environment can understand their environment’s degradation (Hansford &McKerchar, 2010). Once the environment has been degraded, living things tend to be affected. One can ask him or herself the specific group that bears the cost of climate degradation. The discussion below tries to answer these questions. People tend to reason that the cost of environment degradation is yielded by people of a certain social class and not the other. In other words, people reason that activities of poor members of the society end up impacting negative effects to the rich. Others argue that the activities of the rich members of the society affect the poor who bear the cost of environmental degradation. Water scarcity, as well as water pollution, is one of the effects of environmental degradation. More than two million that usually occur every year and billions of illnesses are attributable to water pollution (Doyle, 1992). These ailments take place due to adverse effects of polluted water and water shortage. One can argue that only the poor who will fall in this bracket since the rich will be able to purchase treated water. This could be true, but it is possible for them to come across products that are contaminated by this water and get affected. Air pollution is another product of environmental degradation. Urban air pollution claims millions of deaths annually and creates numerous chronic health problems. Both poor and rich live in the urban areas. This indicates that everybody is vulnerable to the threats of air pollution irrespective of their social class. In simple terms, every human being bears the cost of environmental degradation. Solid and hazardous wastes tend to spread diseases. The blocked drains and uncollected garbage poses health risk although they are usually acute. These wastes also affect productivity as well as produced materials as a result of ground water resources pollution (Hansford &McKerchar, 2010). All these effects will affect any living creature irrespective of the outlined classes. Deforestation which is another aspect incorporated in environmental degradation has the potential of causing diseases and deaths as a result of localized flooding. Soil erosion will also be evident while biodiversity will also be lost. Some animals as well as plant species can end up becoming extinct. This implies that some genetic resources will be lost. Ozone also ends up being depleted as a result of environmental pollution. 300, 000 cases of skin cancer that tends to be added annually are attributable to the depletion of the ozone layer (Dinar, 2011). Global warming has become a norm of the day in the world today which is a result environmental degradation. These diseases are not meant for a certain social class. The discussion above reveals very well that all human beings are vulnerable to adverse effects of environmental degradation. It matters not the social class of a person. Once the environment has been degraded, it impacts negative effects to every living creature in that region. It is not only human beings who bear the effects of environment pollution, but any living thing gets affected. According to Hansford & McKerchar (2010), water pollution affects human beings, aquatic creatures as well as any animal that will tend to drink that water. Plants also bear the effects of water pollution and other forms of environmental degradation. This implies that every living creature bears the effects of environmental degradation. The responsible groups in cleaning up the environment vary from one nation to the other. In some nations, the government takes the responsibility of cleaning the environment. This is done by the establishment of an agency whose responsibility is solely cleaning the environment. However, it is worth noting that the cash this agency will use will have come from the citizens from the taxes which have been levied. This clearly shows that the polluters who are the citizens who are cleaning up the environment directly. It will, therefore, be unwise to assume that the cleaning up process is being carried out by the government (Farber, 2012). It is the duty of every person to keep the environment clean. In most of the nations like the United States, homeowners or taxpayers tend to bear the price of cleaning up contamination whenever it takes place. It is evident that the states and federal governments have environment clean-up programs (Doyle, 1992). However, it has been noted that they are usually provided with limited capital. This means that it will be difficult for them cater for isolated or private environmental sites. The bottom line of the whole issue of environmental degradation is that every member of the society has an obligation in keeping the environment clean. If one goes ahead and pollutes the environment because the government will come to clean, it is good if he or she understands that it will his or her responsibility also through the levied tax. There are numerous benefits attributable to clean environments. A clean environment assures the society of good health. Cases of diseases such as skin cancer as well as other chronic diseases that come as a result of polluted environment will be greatly reduced. The clean environment also protects deaths of the living things. Pollutant free water will not kill the aquatic creatures, animals, plants as well as human beings. This implies that keeping the environment clean protects death. It also helps in maintaining biodiversity. This is because animals and plants that can easily become extinct as a result pollution will be assured of a continuous life (Boyce, 2002). Conclusion The discussion above reveals that there is a great necessity of protecting the environment or keeping it clean. Bearing in mind the threats that face human life as a result of polluting environment it is better to protect the environment rather than to face the consequences of environment degradation. It is also evident that after polluting the environment the polluters or the members of the society also bears the responsibility of cleaning the environment. Environmental policies or pollution taxes need to be put in effect so as to discourage massive environmental pollution. It is of great importance to note that it is the responsibility of every member of the society to keep the environment clean. References Boyce, J. K. (2002). The political economy of the environment. Cheltenham, U.K: E. Elgar Pub. Dinar, S. (2011). Beyond resource wars: Scarcity, environmental degradation, and international cooperation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Doyle, K. A. (1992). Paying for Environmental Cleanup under C.E.R.C.L.A.: A Survey of the State of the Law in the Fourth Circuit. 16 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Poly Rev. 61 Farber, D. A. (2012). Pollution Markets and Social Equity: Analyzing the Fairness of Cap and Trade. New York: 39 Ecology L.Q. 1 Hansford A. and McKerchar M. (2010). Future Global Challenges to Achieve Fairness in Environmental Taxation: Moving Beyond the Dimensions of Horizontal and Vertical Equity. eJournal of Tax Research 8 (2),175-187 Khuda, Z. R. M. M., & Environmental Survey and Research Unit (Dhaka, Bangladesh). (2001). Environmental degradation: Challenges of the 21st century. Dhaka: Environmental Survey and Research Unit. Read More