Home > Politics, News & Issues > Environmental Issues > Environmental Awareness
Voluntary programs or regulatory mandates: Which is the more effective way to achieve environmental performance?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Regulatory | 55% | 129 votes | Total: 236 votes | |
| Voluntary | 45% | 107 votes |
Regulatory
by George B Nichols
Created on: June 06, 2011 Last Updated: June 08, 2011
Thomas Paine wrote, “That government is best which governs least.” The more government regulation there is, the more we run afoul of this aphorism. But Paine was looking for a minimal amount of government intrusion, not a state of total anarchy. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution sought to impose anarchy. Those documents and the Founding Fathers recognize that people establish governments to accomplish certain objectives together that they cannot attain separately.
While there are those who argue that the environment is not in danger, the evidence is clear that as our society has become more complex, we have changed our earth, and not always for the better. More species are becoming extinct than at any time since the disappearance of the dinosaur. (one article) Even Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney agrees that warming is a valid threat.
But for a company to choose to focus on its impact on the environment means it must devote resources away from other core functions. Let’s face it: being green costs green. Pollution control equipment is expensive. And while an environmentally conscious corporation is a wonderful thing, it imposes costs on itself that its competitors can avoid. Money is the blood in the veins of commerce, and a company that bleeds to clean up the environment threatens its very existence and defies its primary purpose, which is to bring economic value to its stakeholders.
Environmental decisions impose costs that are not a part of the ordinary consumer’s decision about what product to buy. There may be certain products which I choose, irrespective of price, but so many of the decisions I make about what to buy cannot take into account the environmental track record of the supplier. My decision about where I buy my gas cannot take into account whether the drilling rig that found the oil had the latest and greatest blowout preventer in place. I have no idea whether the fuel in the combine that harvested the wheat in the toast they served with my morning fast-food breakfast sandwich came from corn, oil, or if it was an indigenous farmer in a third world country with a hand held scythe.
Adam Smith’s invisible hand cannot protect the environment unless there is no cost to reducing pollution. If there is a cost, and there is, then those companies who choose to behave in a more environmentally conscious manner do so at a competitive disadvantage. They jeopardize their survival, which jeopardizes the investment made in them and the jobs they create.
The only way to make it economically feasible for a company to control its pollution is to require it of all companies. Any other option forces the environmentally sensitive companies to operate at a competitive disadvantage. The marketplace will see to it that those companies don’t survive.
If, on the other hand, environmental regulations are imposed across the board, then those costs become a factor businesses must take into account. The same system that would kill a non-polluting company in an unregulated environment would reward the most efficient non-polluters. The market would drive innovation so that companies could achieve better environmental performance in the best way.
Years ago, skies over major cities were choked with soot, most of which came from the tailpipes of cars. Government mandated that auto pollution be reduced, pollution control devices were developed and, voila, the air became cleaner. Great strides have been made in controlling water pollution because of regulation, not the market.
Let’s face it. If someone could produce a car that didn’t have all the pollution control devices, that car would be substantially cheaper. All but the greenest among us would buy that cheaper car, hoping that there were enough people who didn’t care about money to keep us from choking to death. Economics tells us there aren’t.
Therefore, the most effective way to improve environmental performance is through regulatory mandates.
Learn more about this author, George B Nichols.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Voluntary
by Greg Slack
Created on: April 03, 2008
Voluntary is the only way the world will ever be able to reach its full potential in any aspect, and especially in matters of the environment. Let's be clear on our goals here; environmental balance and the equal participation of the entire world, and improvement in the
application of environmental laws and regulations already in place.
The best possible outcome to anything affecting the entire world is achieved through the universal participation of that same world. Further, if we make something a law, some will rebuke that law. However if we can get them to care and somehow personalize the idea, thought or feeling on something, they will do what they can to support it. This has been the case throughout history, and will continue into the future.
People often break laws, dispute mandates, and rise up against absolutism. But to go against their own feelings, and disregard that which they believe is against their nature.
And when these laws are applied to things of such varied opinion like the environment, to so many in different social-economic situations, religious beliefs, governmental policies, and educations; we will have more that resist those mandates than support them. Anyone can write a law, but not everyone will live by it. Or more to the heart of the matter; care about what it means to the rest of the world.
It is easy for a wealthy country to make judgments on environmental policies; they have all the advantages of being wealthy. They have the ability to make decisions without the same stress on costs that a poor or less developed country would have in a similar situation.
If I feel carbon emissions of a certain product are too high, I can afford an alternative, or invest in research to improve it. However, my neighbor may not be able to make such allowances, and be forced to produce that product in the most economical way.
The best way to address this issue in regards to the environment would be to:
1. Share applicable knowledge and technologies either freely, or with a form of deferred payment.
2. Educate my neighbor in areas he may be lacking.
3. Get my neighbor to care about his own part of the world.
Information is power, and commands a higher price tag than any commodity anywhere. That is where humanity must change if it wants to save our environment.
What affects the least of us will in the end affect us all. We know this to be true; look at the way we knew to limit visits to and from China during the Bird Flu problems, or for that matter, shipments of beef from Canada when Mad Cow was rampant. Indeed, we knew and still know what affects one affects all.
Many of the poorer and less developed countries do not understand this. Whether this is from ignorance of the rest of the world, or from the influences of outside interest that stand to gain from their ignorance makes no matter in the end. The bigger problem of our environment will still remain.
Because of those outsiders that stand to gain from keeping them oblivious to the dangers, we must make all advances in environmental technologies and knowledge free and open to all. Once we eliminate the profit of keeping some of the world in the dark, we will keep those influences from exploiting them.
Once the knowledge and technologies are available, we can share the scientific theories and processes that made those technologies possible. Thereby opening a vast new wealth of otherwise untapped creativity and talent to the betterment of us all.
When the knowledge and ability to learn efficiently is equally shared to all, everyone will in turn care about themselves and their part of the world. They will know they matter in the world, for perhaps the first time in their history, they will know they matter. And when one has a sense of self-worth, one will realize the worth of others, and so deem everyone of value.
Then petty ideals in religious beliefs, governmental policies, and social standards will seem less important, and we will find fewer disputes over such tripe.
We hear about winning hearts and minds in places after we conquer them, to help the environment we must win them before and without conquering them. The greatest step we can take to helping the environment is to share the knowledge and education as quickly and efficiently possible.
Our thoughts dictate or feelings, and to change our feelings we must change our thoughts first.
Thinking of knowledge as a commodity only open to those that can pay the price, has held mankind back far too long, and now threatens the place we live, air we breathe, water we drink, and food we eat. If we want we want improvements in environmental performance, we start with improvements in human performance and go from there.
Learn more about this author, Greg Slack.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next Page >>
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley