Community Values Regarding the Environment Are at Odds with Government Values - Essay Example

Running header: Environment Student’s name: Instructor’s name Subject code: Date of submission Community values regarding the environment are at odds with government values Both the community and the government agree on the important value the environment is to our lives on earth. We all live in areas deeply connected to many aspects of the environment including streams, rivers, lakes forests, mountains etc. As such, both the community and the government appreciate that the health and vibrancy of the natural environment in which we live also affects the health and vibrancy of the community. As such, both the community and the government are actively involved in environmental conservation in what is called environmental governance. This involves getting everyone including the community and the government actively involved in environmental conservation. However, despite increased activities in environmental governance, EPA (2014) states that the benefits are yet to be realized. In fact, environmental destruction seems to have increased more than ever before regardless of the increasing awareness on the need to conserve our environment. In this regard, it has been argued that these efforts will not succeed in the near future since the community’s view on environment is at odds with that of the government. As such, while one stakeholder may be undertaking conservation effort, the other could be undertaking destructive efforts. To a great extent, this is true as will be revealed by this paper. Robins (2005) states that the government has a long-term view on environment while the community holds a short-term view. This means that the activities undertaken by the government regarding the environment will be to ensure that environment is sustained for ages. On the other hand, the community’s activities are supposed to ensure their survival and hence are short-lived and at times destructive to the environment. This for instance would explain why the community may fail to understand why the government may evict them from a water catchment area or prevent logging from our forests. To the community, the environment provides settlement while logging will provide income. However, the government is aware of the importance of forests and hence catchment areas for survival not only for the current generation but also for generations to come. The community may on the other hand undertake farming activities that may increase crop yield in the short term but end up eventually destroying the soil in the long run. This is why the government promotes organic farming in a bid to ensure that soil and rivers are conserved. The short term view of environment is also seen in the way industrialists want to release carbon in the atmosphere for the sake of their profitability without regard to the effect this would have on the climate and hence the environment that need to be sustained. This is why the environmental agencies have to fight court battles with people who are intent on undertaking activities that destroy the environment. In this regard, Robins (2005) argues that owing to the divergent views regarding the benefits of the environment to mankind, the community and the government are seen to undertake activities that are odd and hence which have different effects on the environment. Mento (2011), states that the community’s major interest in the environment is settlement and survival while the government is mainly interested in the environment for diversity and climate. In their pursuit of settlement and survival therefore, the community at times get involved in activities that end up destroying the environment. On the other hand, the government will be seen as conflicting with the community for advocating for environmental conservation activities though they may not be popular with the community. This explains why governments still struggle with people who want to settle in the forests thus increasing the human world life conflict. This is also seen in how cases of poaching of world life have increased. In this regard, the government may be interested in the diversity of species for the sake of future generation. Furthermore, the government’s view on environment in this case is not selfish as it is intended to benefit the whole society as opposed to the community which only undertakes environmental conservation efforts that are beneficial to itself even if it is to the detriment of other communities. According to AU 2014, tones of tusks and ivory are stolen out of Africa every year with the perpetrators not caring whether the animal species are extinct. Similarly, thousands of tons of rare species of trees have been logged out of forests by those who care less about biodiversity. In preserving the environment, the climate is of major concern to the government. In this regard, the need to have conducive climate in our country overrides the economic gains attributed to the environment for the government. This is why the government is actively involved in the protection of water towers and catchment areas. On the other hand, the community has been accused of placing economic gains above biodiversity and the climate as explained above. In this regard, the community’s view of environment is seen to be at odds with the government’s view. An interesting argument regarding community and government view of environment has been advanced by Steiner (2010). Steiner argues that the community’s interest is almost selfish since it is only geared towards self-gains while the government’s view on environment is that of common good. The various initiatives taken by the government to protect the environment whether successful or not have been geared towards the common good. On the other hand, activities like encroachment into the forests, poaching, logging, industrial activities that destroy the Ozone layer undertaken by members of the community are only selfish and geared towards short term economic gains as opposed to long-term sustainability. On the other hand, such activities as prevention of poaching, water catchment areas conservation activities and similar activities undertaken by the government are intended at ensuring that everyone including future generations benefit from the environment. However, how true this is questionable since the government should be environment’s watchdog and increased destruction of environment only means that the government is failing in its mandate (Costanza, 1997). However, this does definitely demonstrate that the community’s view of environment is at odds with the government’s view. It has been stated above that the government does not let economic gains supersede all other reasons for environmental conservation. However, Starke (2009) accuses the government of being hypocritical in its application of environmental conservation standards at times. For instance, the recent carbon tax was seen to have greatly failed to address the release of carbon into the atmosphere. In fact, it only served to increase fuel and energy cost thus adding an extra burden to the tax payer.in addition, the government as the environmental watchdog has been blamed for allowing companies builds companies in areas that are not environmentally viable. In the same vein it has allowed industrialists release harmful gases into the atmosphere then blame the community of not doing enough to conserve the environment. Here, the government’s view differ with that of the community as the community through NGO’s has been active in campaigning for the government to take a more active role in ensuring reduction of global warming. The right thing to do by the government in ensuring a good environmental assessment has been done before companies can be licensed before industries can be set up. The government should also be more active in campaigning for the community to be more responsible in their view of the environment while assisting them in their conservation efforts since it has the necessary resources (Waikatoregion.gov, 2014). In this regard, the government has been seen as hypocritical since it only actively protects environment when there is no much economic gains to be made. In this regard also, the government’s view of environment is seen to conflict with the community’s view. Government at times hypocritical in its approach to environmental conservation as seen when industries are allowed to release their carbon waste into the atmosphere-in this case, community has to keep government at its toes through demonstrations As has been demonstrated above, the community’s values regarding the environment are at odds with the government’s value. However, this is not always the case, in a few instances, the government and the communities have been seen to undertake activities that are similar in conservation with regard to the environment. Castree (2006) states that such activities as prevention of erosion, planting trees and walking more and driving cars less though in less scale are similar with government’s efforts to conserve water towers and prevent the destruction of the Ozone layer leading to global warming. Thus, he states that if the community was to be empowered, its value for environment does not have to be at odds with that of the government and that only then can environmental governance succeed in conserving the environment. However, as of now, the activities taken by the community which demonstrate its view on environment seem to be at odds with the government’s view. When the government is actively advocating for conservation, the community is seen taking measures that are centrally and vice versa. However, as stated above, in some few cases, the community’s view of environment seems to be at par with that of the government. References: EPA, 2014, Community culture and the environment, Retrieved on 14th September 2014, from; http://www.epa.gov/care/library/community_culture.pdf Robins, D2005, Environmental sustainability and the global warming, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Mento, R2011, Neoliberal environments, London, Rutledge. Steiner, B2010, Environmental governance, New York, Taylor & Francis. AU, 2014, Bamako convention on the ban of the import into Africa and the control of Trans boundary movement and management of Hazardous wastes within Africa, Retrieved on 14th September 2014, Steiner, M2010, Community and environment, Sydney, Prentice Hall. Starke, C2009, Review of environmental governance system within nations, New York, Long Man Publishers. Castree, Y2006, The neoliberalization of nature: Governance, Privatization, Enclosure and valuation, Capitalism nature socialism, vol.16, no. 1 pp. 6. Waikatoregion.gov, 2014, Community views about the environment, Retrieved on 14th September 2014; http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Community/About-the-Waikato-region/Community- views-about-the-environment/ Costanza, R1997, The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, vol. 387, pp. 225-229. Read More