Example research essay topic: Environmental Policy Versus The Economy - 1,258 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Environmental policy versus the economy It is in the ring set up by greedy corporations and enviro tree huggers where the top card is the economy versus the environment. To help gain support, the economy yells, The Green groups may decry economic growth, but it is growth itself that makes environmental protection possible and popular pollution is as old as human activity, but only recently have we been rich enough to worry about it. 10 On the other side, we have Putting pollution controls in place-or even preventing pollution in the first place-sometimes saves businesses money. 1 Its not a question of jobs versus the environment. There will be no jobs left on a dead, scorched Earth. 2 While the government tries to satisfy both sides, neither the environment nor the economy seems to really be winning. In June of 1992, most world countries and a vast array of private organizations gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. This Rio Conference represented a major international effort to address the common environmental term: sustainability. Sustainability was understood as being able to maintain a continuing progress that does no further damage to the ecosystem.

At the Rio Conference, two main international agreements were made: First, a convention to cut down emissions that creates global warming. President Bush agreed to sign this after prudent objections. Second, a convention to protect biodiversity, President Bush refused to sign this, making the United States the only major state not to accept the biodiversity treaty. 5 Later on, President Clinton signed the treaty and reversed the United States position. 8 The convention to protect biodiversity was a perfect example of how the developed countries resisted strong language in the treaties. This was done because with an already powerful economy, the more flexible terms would better ensure no restrictions that would really effect their economy.

This clarifies how much power the business industry has over politics. While the president was at the summit to help sustain the environment, he never let the pressures of an abundant economy slip his mind. His argument for the United States concerning biodiversity was that he objected to the protection of endangered animal and plant species because it did not provide a patent protection for U. S. biotechnology firms. 4 President Bush virtually stood alone when he had objections with the treaty for protection against global warming. He agreed to sign only after references to binding targets and timetables were dropped in favor of a more general pledge to reduce the emissions of gases that cause global warming. 8 Both the public and world leaders alike criticized the President for letting reelection issues to dominate policy.

What the Rio Conference did do for the United States is it helped educate people on some lesser-known issues and made the environment popular again. The expanded and heightened public attention placed a greater emphasis for environmental concerns in Americas foreign aid program. With this came arguments that giving more effective environmental aid does not necessarily mean giving more money. 3 Some say that large aid flows do not solve the problem, but perhaps make it worse. Their controversial suggestion is less but better aid. United States progress in helping other nations environmental issues has been very sluggish. Even after several years have passed since the Rio Conference, there still has been little done by the wealthier nations to assist poorer countries in developing environmental safeguards.

Some reasons for there being such slow progress in environmental foreign aid issues is that foreign aid itself has been a common target for cutting federal spending. 3 Still others want to exclude environmental aid arguing that in addition to furthering U. S. security interests, foreign aid should be restricted to stimulating private trade and investment. 9 Another source of controversy is the Bush administrations 1990 Clean Air Act amendment. The amendment was designed to halt the spread of acid rain that threatened the survival of lakes, rivers, and forests. This meant that utilities would be granted transferable allowances to emit sulfur dioxide in proportion to their current emissions level. 10 Then, all facilities that still polluted more than its allocated amount would have to buy emission allowances from someone who was polluting under their requirements. The theory was that the companies that were able to reduce emissions for less than their credits were worth could then sell them at a profit.

Those companies that continued to fail to stay under emissions requirements would have to keep buying credits at a steadily increasing price. Now, companies essentially had the ability to buy and sell the right to pollute. 10 One main problem with this program from the beginning was that the amendment included many rules for extensions and substitutions. One writer against this amendment states that With reduced emissions now a marketable commodity, the range of possible abuses may grow considerably, as utilities will have a direct financial incentive to manipulate reporting of their emissions to improve their position in the pollution credits market. 10 The supporters argue that as pollution standards will be increased over time, the credits will become more valuable and therefore owners could yield large profits all while fighting pollution. In reality, after the Environmental Protection Agency began selling pollution credits in 1993, it became obvious that next to nothing was actually following their original projections. The values of the credits have actually diminished and it has continuously become more and more attractive to purchase the credits instead of investing in pollution control. What has happened is when the pollution credits have been traded between two companies, often the results have countered the programs stated intentions.

Some companies have chosen to exceed the mandated levels by purchasing credits instead of implementing expensive controls. While this would in turn save money, the actual overall level of pollution would remain the same as if both companies had complied equally. Because of this, many have argued that market forces will assume that the most cost-effective means of reducing acid rain will be implemented first, saving the economy billions of dollars in excess pollution control costs. The Illinois Power Company that canceled the construction of a 350 million-dollar scrubber system in the city of Decatur is quoted as saying, Our compliance plan is based almost totally on purchase of credits.

They were one of the first companies to bid for additional credits. Here, the rules seem to have turned into an encouraged voluntary compliance. Another issue is that the market based environmental policies system can very easily be compromised by large companys strategic behavior. Emissions trading have become a government permitted way that allows large corporate interests to remain fairly free of ecological obstacles in their pro-economic pursuit of profit. Shortly after the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments passed, the Environmental Defense Fund not only gave the trading of emissions allowances their full support, but explained that is was simply part of a world scale plan. With additional support of the plan from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in 1992, international emissions trading is looking quite probable.

An international market in pollution rights could cause further problems like widening existing inequalities among nations. The author of an anti-free market environmentalism article writes; Expanded to an international scale, the potential for unaccountable manipulation of industrial policy by a few corporations would easily compound the disruptions already caused by often reckless international traders in stocks, bonds, and currencies. 10 This case clearly shows how domestic politics can drastically manipulate inte...

Research essay sample on Environmental Policy Versus The Economy