Unfortunatley, making a change for the better on a global scale will be much more difficult then fixing our own local or domestic land fill issues. In trying to create any type of "global standard" for the environment we must enter into the realm of foregin policy and international relations. As evidenced in the Kyoto Protocol, even a beneficial and widely accepted plan can be rather in significant when leading global-players refuse to take part. The technologies that would be used in place of landfills sometimes require infrastructure, such as incineration plants or biological treatments. It is very hard for any international institution to forcibly require developing nations such as Brazil, India and China to take up such means, when we most certainly did not during our period of industrialization. In my opinion the hope for change lies in the developed world to make the change.
The Kuznets curve of luxury goods has been cited by some economists, such as 2007 Rhodes Scholar Leng Lee to explain the possible outcome of the developing world's environmental footprint. The Kuznets curve explains that an inequality will increase over time until a certain income level is reached at which point, said inequality will decrease. Is the environment a luxury good, that we will begin to care for better once a certain income level is reached? Well this cannot be determined for sure, but it is quite clear that countries such as the USA, Canada, EU, Japan, South Korea and Australia have to be the leaders in the elimination of landfills. It is actions such as the EU's agreement amongst member countries to move away from landfills that we need to institute. We need to lead the way as an economic super power in terms of beginning to eliminate our landfills in ways such as those listed bellow. In doing so we can set an example for the developing world, rather than pointing our fingers in blame at them.
3 comments:
Keely Schneider
I agree that at this point, living an environmentally friendly life is a luxury because hybrids cost more, organic produce is pricey, installing solar panels are not affordable for everyone... etc. I believe that the only way a major change in our habits will take place is if the cost of being environmentally aware is decreased. Maybe the government could create tax cuts for citizens who find alternative ways to manage their waste such as compost piles and worm farms. This would decrease dependence on landfills while creating an economic incentive to be environmentally aware.
Alexa Coughlin
I agree with what Keely is saying. When my family bought a prius however, we discovered that it actually saved us money in the end. We rarely have to get gas, and our car hasn't broken down unlike our old car, which frequently broke down. I do understand though, that some people may not be able to afford the short term cost for the long term benefits. Because of this I agree that the government should provide some sort of initiative to go green. I would be willing to have a slight tax increase to accommodate for this because our planet is a precious place :D
I understand the need to get the public involved with waste management, but do not think the government should be left with control over the matter. Financial incentives such as a "solid waste market" would be more successful and less intrusive than government controlled reform. We need to reduce government spending while still having ample economic opportunities. This can be done through a solid waste market like that of the carbon market, or an international financial organization with more power than the Kyoto protocol.
Post a Comment