Restrictive Effects of Environmental Regulations
For some time, governments around the world have been putting some
regulations concerning environmental issues. In this issue, the weight
of these regulations is the main point. First argument states that
they are, indeed, too restrictive. The second argument maintains those
regulations are not too restrictive.
The first side, against regulations, did not present their argument
well enough. They used examples from the past and only from a specific
location (Theodore Roosevelt and the U.S.). The past is over, so we
cannot use past as an example. Second, there are other parts of the
world other than the U.S. The strongest argument was about economic
and freedom interfering. The government is interfering with personal
economical and freedom rights. The examples in the text are relevant
enough (pg39, paragraph2). Personally, I thought their argument lacked
evidence and did not make sense. The only logical argument they
proposed was the one about aesthetics [A sense on aesthetics would get
us…and harmless. (pg46, paragraph 3).] This argument is basically
saying priests and propagandists should not affect scientific
decisions.
As for the other argument, which is for government regulations, I can
easily say that it was much stronger and more effective. First it
listed 9 "false facts" about regulations and environment overall
[Environmental scientists…the economy (pg50, 4th paragraph)]. Also,
they focus on decision-makers. They claim that "decision-makers, too,
have a tendency to focus mostly on the more obvious and immediate
environmental problems" (pg 51, 3rd paragraph). Also, they continue;
"most people still don't realize that humanity has become a true
global force, interfering with a very real and direct way in many of
the planet's natural cycles." The examples they have given are
sufficient enough to back this argument up (pg51, 4th paragraph). I
think their strongest argument was the one about the public. It goes
like this; "the public often seems unaware of the success of actions
taken at the instigation of the environmental movement. People can
easily see the disadvantages of environmental regulations but not the
The beginning paragraph is what draws many readers to Quammen’s article. He begins with statements implying that environmentalism is a bad thing altogether. For those who are truly against environmental protection, this is an eye-catching statement. They will want to
...nerations” if things go unregulated. Fortunately science provides policy makers with the information needed to make informed regulations to benefit the future. It seems that environmentalism is becoming the stewardship of the Earth.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1996). Betrayal of science and reason: How anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
(Common Sense) Then read what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence which states “These rights include the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government.” (Declaration of Independence) In both of these it states that they were doing what was in the best interest for the people.
The propositions and oppositions of regulating air pollution is extensive. Although this paper does not cover every proposition and opposition it will detail four pros and three oppositions, which will provide insight on the concerns of government regulation. Beginning with the propositions, scholars and analysts agree that the CAA has prevented premature deaths and illnesses, has been a good economic investment, has had a positive impact on the economy, and has helped the U.S. become a global leader in clean air technologies (EPA).
He says that biking to work and doing things that are better on the environment but he says that on the flip side there is people out there doing the exact opposite. He doesn’t want to do everything he can to slow down the CO2 being exposed in the atmosphere, if other people aren’t going to care and keep doing their regular routine so why should he care if others don’t. The purpose of the three paragraphs is to show some examples of the positive and negative effects of options to help the environment. He tells us about a couple politicians which is Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. He wants to know if the people will bother or if they won’t bother about this environmental
When it comes to environmental issues there are many value perspectives and different opinions on how the issues should be resolved. These perspectives that author Judith Lazyer describes her book “The Environmental Case” includes Promethean, conservationist, preservationist, and ecological perspectives. In our class we connected topics we learned in our Environmental Policy class to the books such as “Flight Behavior” and Ecotopia in our English Reality and Utopia class. A connection I found between these books and the policies we learned about in POLS 336 was that all our books included the Promethean and Ecological perspectives when it came to environmental issues. These perspectives were also included in the case studies we read in “The
Case Study - Corporate Obstacles to Pollution Prevention. Overview This case focuses on corporate obstacles to pollution prevention. Pollution prevention can be complex, especially for large corporations. There are many different forms of pollution prevention, including emissions control devices and incremental changes in existing technology.
Have you ever stopped to take a look at your surrounding environment and see lots of grass and open space? Or maybe you live in an industrial city and see smog and lots of factories and buildings being built. Do you ever stop and consider the pollution in your environment and how you could be contributing to it. Today people seem to be much more concerned about their natural environment and have taken various steps to try and reduce their carbon footprints. Examples of this are that many of us choose to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle to drive back and forth to work every day or that more people today take the time to separate recyclables from actual trash. Even the government who usually only seems to want our money has
Vega-Gordilio and Alvarez-Arce (2003) states economic freedoms exist in the following conditions; property acquired without the use of force, fraud, or theft is protected from physical invasions by others. Economic freedoms exist when individuals are free to use, exchange, or give their property to another as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others (Vega-Gordilio & Alvarez-Arce, 2003). Environmental laws are established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who works with state, federal, and other government agencies to issue limitations on individuals and organizations in order to protect the environment, endangered species, and others from harm (Coons, 2009).
...ing may have on the greater population. Regulations on food safety prevent illness to the masses and testing of new chemicals and additives is important (although cumbersome and costly to manufacturers). Vaccinations have helped eradicate many diseases and increased life longevity over the past century (Gostin et al., 2003). Requiring these types of behaviors helps the public as a whole in the utilitarian sense. Regulations have arguably put a financial burden on businesses (Crain & Crain, 2010) but that’s why cost-benefit analyses are important. Benefits are not necessarily free and costs have to occur to achieve regulatory missions. Without regulations, financial burdens could be alleviated but the health of the masses and degradation of the environment would be in a more dire state. Regulation can be considered a necessary evil and great benefit to public health.
Does the implementation of government policies in order to decrease negative environmental effects violate individual rights? This question can’t be answered with just a yes or a no, at least without taking a look at moral reasoning behind the answer or the topic of the environment itself. Published in the International Journal of Academic Research was a piece written by Adrianto Surjono (2011) which stated, “Responding to the global environmental degradation, the international world agreed on the importance of Sustainable Development.” According to Surjono’s research, in recent time the environment and its sustainability has become a worldwide concern. With that being said, even with the environment and its sustainability
... Conflict, 969). Some people may argue that EPA regulations have not made much of a difference because people still are developing respiratory issues and skin cancer because of the stronger sun radiation caused by ozone depletion; however, without these new laws emissions of toxic substances would be out of control. There definitely needs to be more done to continue to target air pollution caused by changes within society. Not everyone agrees with the decisions that EPA makes to diminish air pollutants because they believe that the costs outweigh the benefits produced. But they need to understand that EPA makes decisions not to make their life more difficult and to hurt the economy, but because it is their duty to protect the health, welfare, and the environment of the public. With this in mind regulations set by EPA have definitely been the most cost effective.
As a nation, it is vital that the United States of America begins to move toward a process of environmental sustainability in order to protect the prosperity of this country and the planet as a whole for generations to come. In the past, environmental legislation has been put into place in order to start to encourage a transition toward a mindset of preserving the overall well being of the planet. An example of this is the clean air act, which was implemented in 1963, and then amended in 1966, 1970, 1977, and 1990. While this has been considered a successful piece of legislation that has reduced air pollution by up to 70%, it is still not enough, as harmful emissions into the atmosphere continue to mass pollute the planet(McCarthy and Burke, 650). One of the main issues
One of the major points that Kaplan makes and he focuses on heavily in the beginning of the article is how environmental scarcity plays an impact on people’s decisions. There is a finite amount of natural resources in the world for people to use, and we are fast approaching a point where the world can no longer support our growing population. All of this is spurred on by an increase in practices that cause deforestation, soil erosion, pollution and global warming. A great analogy within the article is that we are robbing from tomorrow’s future to support the present, which is shown in that “…man is challenging nature far beyond its limits, and nature is now beginning to take its revenge.” (Kaplan, 1994) The new major threat that every nation and person has to be aware of is how the immediate results of our mismanagement of the environment can have a tremendous backlash, not only within our lives but the lives of future generations. All of these environmental concerns are dots that connect with Kaplan’s other main arguments.