Environmental policy seems to be the answer to the question of: "The environment is messed up but what can we do?" The process of environmental policy seemed pretty straightforward to me, but the only problem with it is the super-long timeframe of passing legislation. The environment is hurting now, but until legislation gets passed, which could be a long and arduous process, nothing can be done.
I believe the U.S. should have ratified the Kyoto Protocol because the reason we pulled out is because of the selfish interests of polluting big businesses not wanting to possible take a financial hit. It is because of them that we have so much pollution in this country. They are also why passing legislation on the environment is so difficult and time consuming. So many people are going to have varied interests, and nobody wants to be worse off financially. It is so hard to create legislation on a national scale with so many varied interests, which is why local policies should be implemented because they can directly deal with a problem that pertains to the local community rather than deal with a national piece of legislation.
I would like to see negative incentive to enforce the carbon dioxide cap. Right now, lawmakers are speaking of financial rewards and incentives for going green. Going green should be THE only way to go so they shouldn't be rewarded. Businesses should be fined for how much carbon dioxide they pollute. Getting hurt financially is good incentive for businesses to switch to green practices, not getting helped financially for not polluting. In a realistic world, no business would decide to turn green just because. Companies need to be galvanized to do what is good for the environment.
I think you make a great point in identifying industry interest groups as obstacles in environmental policy-making, as well as identifying local action as a more viable route. Maybe one way to link these two ideas could be to show that sustainable business practices are profitable and beneficial at a local level, which will make a stronger argument at a federal-policy level.
ReplyDelete