The Equivalence Between Environmentalism and Human Rights

There has been a great deal of press lately surrounding the UN’s Copenhagen conference. This conference is to hold a large role in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Mittelstaedt’s article explains that even with the conference so soon, Canada is yet to step up and take a leadership role in compliance with the agenda expressed by this conference in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. The article goes on to explain the general dissatisfaction among Canadians towards this unsettling lack of environmental concern displayed by Canada.

Canada is a country known for its leadership when it comes to making sure the rights of all humans are being respected, but if Canada is not to take part in reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions, then what does that show about the amount of care Canada shows towards the rights of all of its citizens?

According to Beder (2006,) there is a principal in environmental sciences which addresses the relationship between human rights and concern for the environment. This human rights principle essentially describes the allowance of pollution as a chain reaction. First, pollution is allowed to occur, creating a negative impact on the environment. This environmental impact leads to other adverse affects on the earth, and in turn, us. So, by this logic, allowance of pollution in any way means allowance of (or at least risk of) harm to all humans residing on the planet, thus violating human rights.

This principle is easily applied to the issue concerning Canada’s lack of concern regarding greenhouse-gas emissions. Greenhouse-gasses released into the atmosphere contribute to a process known as “global warming” which consequently brings about climate change. Change in the earth’s climate inevitably changes the earth itself, and by changing the conditions of the earth, our health (as well as the health of all living things on the planet) is bound to be affected. Therefore, ignoring the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions means consequently ignoring every living thing on earth’s right to good health.

With all of this considered, it is no surprise that Canadians disapprove of the lack of leadership their country shows towards the reduction of harmful greenhouse-gas emissions. But the government’s decisions must be based on some reflection on the general population. According to Mittelstaedt (2009,) statistics show that the well being of the environment is ranked only as the third most important issue in Canada (below health care and the economy.) while the state of the economy and health care are very valid concerns, the more concerning part of all of this is that the study shows that only 12% of Canadians find the environment to be an important issue needing to be addressed (Mittelstaedt, 2009). If Canadians are expecting their government to take the state of the environment more seriously, maybe it is up to them to express concern first.

On the bright side, the first step in the solution to climate change is often said to be the realization of its existence, and according to Mittelstaedt (2009,) 72% of Canadians now see climate change as an issue which will become quite serious. If so many Canadians realize that this is an issue, this begs the question as to why so little find it worthwhile to address.


References

Mittelstaedt, Martin. "Canadians chagrined over status as climate-change dawdlers" News from Canada and the world - The Globe and Mail. 20 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .

T, M. C. "US hangs back on climate change." Smh.com.au. 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.

Taxing energy-intensive products

Henry Chu of the LA times interviewed Dieter Helm, an economist and professor of energy policy at Oxford University. Helm is a strong supporter of a carbon tax to reduce global green house gasses, but wants the tax to be applied to not only fossil fuels but also to all major energy-intensive products that are both manufactured within the country and imported.

The professor proposes to tax major energy- intensive products like steel, the use of aviation, and ships first, starting with low prices but increasing the tax overtime. This would allow for future businesses to begin making investments in manufacturing products with lower-carbon emissions. Helm is more concerned about carbon consumption as opposed to carbon emissions and brings into example countries like Britain, which are reducing their carbon production but are increasing their carbon consumption. This occurs because they import many goods from other countries like China, thus making Britain essentially responsible for their emissions. Professor Helms proposes what he calls a border tax where imports are also taxed in order to pay for the pollution being done in other countries. He claims that this is a neutral tax since it does not discriminate against where the product was made. Helm likes this approach since it can be implemented slowly. He understands that the west has a carbon economy which needs to become zero or low-carbon. With the carbon tax it can be implemented at first with a low price, and then over time be used on other energy-intensive products therefore increasing the tax. Helm calls it learning by taxing, you start of on the right track and simply adjust the tax until it is ideal.

The carbon tax is already implemented all around Europe like in Finland, France and Sweden. Other countries like Ireland and Britain might also follow suit. Helm estimates that within five or so years most countries in Europe will have a carbon tax. He admits that the tax is not brilliant at the moment but believes that countries will eventually do some fine-tuning to perfect it. Helm also believes that this sort of tax is very possible in the U.S. He also thinks that it will deal with the China question; where industries from other countries wont lose to competition in countries like China since the border tax will allow a neutral price. Furthermore politicians cannot use the excuse “no one else is doing it”, since other places are implementing the tax.

I agree with Helms and believe that this is an excellent way of promoting low carbon and energy products, especially since it would be implemented slowly, it would give time for businesses to come up with ways to provide their products or services so as to limit their emissions. Also, this tax would not allow industries to loose their business to outside production since the border tax will neutralize competition. Unfortunately the tax would directly affect the consumers who are not directly causing the emissions. I still believe that this is a step in the right direction but should not be a major component in cutting a country’s green house gas emissions. I believe a tax that would significantly reduce emissions should be put on the polluters rather then on the consumers. The polluters are the direct source of the problem and it is their actions that will determine how much pollution they will emit. An economic incentive policy similar to the one implemented in the United States to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions would yield the quickest and most effective results.

Professor Helm’s proposition for a carbon and border tax would promote businesses to invest and use efficient technologies to emit less and would eliminate competition from other countries, thus preventing negative effects on the economy. However this type of tax will be directly punishing the consumer as opposed to the manufacturer. Helm’s tax should be used to promote efficiency but an economic incentive should be used to significantly reduce a country’s green house gas emissions; this way, it will yield more substantial results.

Helm, Dieter. "'Carbon tax' is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says -- latimes.com." Los Angeles Times - California, L.A., Entertainment and World news - latimes.com. LA Times, 12 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 Nov. 2009. .

Climate Change and the Future of the Human Race

Climate change is one of the largest and most complex issues humanity has ever considered. In an article published by the BBC called “Climate change: What price will future generations pay?”, UNICEF ambassador Lord David Putnam argues that “climate change is not just an environmental problem, it is a human rights issue. In fact it’s the biggest child rights issue of our time”. Furthermore, he calls for “the rights of the child along with those of future generations to be acknowledged in the UN climate change negotiations” (Putnam, 2009). I agree wholeheartedly with Putnam’s position. Climate change is as much a moral issue as it is a scientific and economic one. Of particular concern is the plight of those who will inherit the earth from the current generation; what kind of world will they be left? Putnam’s comments relate directly to two closely related environmental principles studied during this course: the equity principle and the sustainability principle.

Equity implies fairness; thus, the equity principle holds that all people should be treated justly and fairly. This applies not only to those currently living, but also to those not yet born. There are, however, several objections to this sense of fairness, and it is the rebuttals to these objections that will solidify the concept of intergenerational equity. How can future generations have rights in the first place? At birth, people inherit the human rights we assign them. If rights are acquired at birth, how then can rights be granted to those not yet born? The answer is that they cannot, at least not individually. But if future generations are treated as a collective group (those people not yet born), then they are subject to collective rights – the very same rights which the living generations currently enjoy (Beder, 2006, p. 81). The cynic may still wonder, “Why should we care about our posterity? They are of no benefit to us.” The fact is that we are morally responsible for our actions, and for the well-being of our planet’s future inhabitants. Our society is producing greenhouse gases, and we know that they will cause harm in the future. Our knowledge gives us a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions in order to lessen the harmful effects of climate change, however far into the future they may be (Ibid, p. 82).

A final concern with the principle of equity towards future generations is that we have no way of predicting their wants, needs, and desires. This objection is no more than a cop-out, for while we do not know what future generations want, we can very well determine what they do not want: “We don’t know what the precise taste of our remote descendants will be, but they are unlikely to include a desire for...the inundation of low-lying areas as a result of the melting of the ice-caps” (Barry, 1999, quoted in Ibid, p. 83). It can now be seen that, as rights-bearing entities, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that future generations receive the fair treatment we extend to those currently living. Putnam is worried that we have neglected our responsibilities. “What price”, he asks, “[will] children have to pay for three or four carbon-happy generations?” (Putnam, 2009).

The only way to ensure equity for our children and for future generations is to abide by the sustainability principle and strive for sustainable development. In the past half-century, it has become increasingly apparent that the Earth’s resources are limited. Initially, the source of these “limits to growth” was seen as resource depletion due to rising human population. This view was since been replaced by resource depletion due to environmental degradation. Indeed, world population is predicted to stabilize within the next several decades, while pollution levels – despite international pledges to reduce emissions – continue to rise (Ibid, p. 16). The solution devised to preserve resources and protect environmental quality has been dubbed sustainable development. This practice is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Beder, 2006, p. 18). Unfortunately, most current economic practices fall short of this goal, using up too many resources and not leaving enough for future generations. Specifically, unless we curb our carbon emissions immediately, we risk dramatic and irreversible climate change, which Putnam describes as “a huge barrier to a fulfilling future” (Putnam, 2009). Unless we reign in our emissions, he claims, we will leave “an indelible mark upon the rights of the child” and all future generations (Ibid).

So, is anything being done to ensure that children and future generations receive equity and that economic development occurs sustainably for their benefit? Thankfully, yes. Many national and international treaties and laws now recognize environmental resources as a “common heritage of mankind”, and have taken measures to utilize them in a sustainable manner (Beder, 2006, p. 81). International climate agreements are making slow but steady progress towards reduced emissions and less drastic climate change, with the upcoming conference in Copenhagen being the most crucial so far. Putnam notes that youth delegates have been accepted to participate in the conference, which he believes to be a crucial first step in the current ruling generation’s realization of the opinions of the younger (Putnam, 2009). However, Putnam argues that more must be done. Specifically, climate change negotiations must focus on solutions for the long term, so that the needs of future generations will be met. While they may not be with us, they still matter greatly, and we should be mindful that they deserve to inherit just as beautiful a world as we did.

REFERENCES

Beder, Sharon. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: Earthscan Publishing.

Putnam, David. (2009). “Climate change: What price will future generations pay?”. British Broadcasting Corporation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8374965.stm. Accessed 21 November 2009.

Important Factors Of Imperial Oil Policy Statement

The ESSO Imperial Oil Corporation has released a Product Safety Policy and provides detailed information on the environmental considerations being made by the company. The ESSO policy touches upon the six main points of responsible environmental consideration and provides examples to support each of their arguments. The policy has a strong environmental conservational message and seems to use the correct methods in creating a more sustainable environment.

The first factor of a strong environmental policy is usually that it shows concern for ecological sustainability. The company addresses this issue by providing the example of fresh water use. The company has implemented new efficient ways of recycling and reusing which has cut down the fresh water use by 88% since the 1970`s. This shows that the company is truly trying to make a difference in the local ecosystem by conserving valuable resources which are more vital to the ecosystem then the company. The policy also (while perhaps merely trying to sharpen the image of ESSO) mentions that it has taken an active partnership with Ducks Limited Canada to try and reclaim wetlands. This point shows that the company, while recognizing damage it has already created, is trying to make reparations to the ecosystem.

While ecological sustainability is important, another important factor of a responsible environmental decision is the "polluter pays principle". This means that it is irresponsible for the company to expect the land or the public to pay to try and make the company environmentally friendly. In the policy it is clear that ESSO is taking a strong stance on this and takes full responsibility for their actions and for making changes which benefit the environment. This is shown in the policy by the statement that most of the factories, over 100, have had automated building systems installed to try and reduce energy waste and over consumption.

One of the more arguable factors for a responsible policy is use of the precautionary principle. ESSO, while not directly stating the use of the precautionary principle shows it's use in many of the plans and regulations stated in the policy. A perfect example is where it is stated that "[the company will] include identification and control of potentially adverse health, safety and environmental effects as priority considerations in the planning and development of products". This statement shows that the company has decided to put public welfare first and make it a priority by using the precautionary principle. This shows a large amount of responsibility on the company's part since they are willing to give up or change product development and planning (a venture which could cost a company many dollars) in order to protect public welfare.

One of the most important factors of a good environmental policy is that it has public participation and keeps the public involved in progress and changes to the company's policy or actions. The ESSO policy clearly states an open relationship with the public by stating that "[the company will] communicate with the public on environmental matters". This shows that ESSO is committed to keeping the public aware of it's intentions and any changes to the public's community and environment. The company also states in the policy that the company will partake in active research to try and find new, more environmentally sound, ways to develop their products and will keep governments, the scientific community and the public aware.

The equity principle entails the consideration of future generations, and when applied to the enevironmental policy of ESSO it is clear to see that they have effectively used the equity principle. The policy shows clear and correct use of the equity principle in most of it's policies. Specifically where it states "[the company will] conduct and support research to improve understanding of the impact of their business on the environment, to improve methods of environmental protection, and to enhance their capability to make operations and products compatible with the environment". This policy shows that the company is taking active steps in trying to prevent any destruction of the environment presently and for future generations as they state they are trying to develop and understanding of how their business effects the environment.

The human rights principle is directly stated in the policy. One example is when the policy states "[the company will] respond quickly and effectively to incidents resulting from their operations, in cooperation with industry organizations and authorized government agencies". This shows that the company is taking the security and well being of the public and it's employee's (aka. humans) very seriously and that the well being is something which the company will respond to very rapidly.

The ESSO policy seems to follow all of the guidelines for a responsible policy. The policy incorporates actions geared towards reparation, preservation and a sustainable future for a global environment. The use of each of the factors makes this a prime example of a responsible policy.

References

ESSO, Imperial Oil. (Copyright 2006) "Imperial oil environmental policy" Accessed from http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Thisis/SHE/Policies/TI_SHE_P_EnvironmentalPolicy.asp Novemeber 24th 2009.

ESSO, Imperial Oil. (Copyright 2006) "Imperial oil product safety policy" Accessed from http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Thisis/SHE/Policies/TI_SHE_P_ProductSafetyPolicy.asp November 14th 2009.

The Benefits of Cap and Trade

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54Q4AU20090527

In a recent article from Reuters, authors Frank Pingue and Allan Dowd explain that the province of Ontario has adopted the cap and trade legislation for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in industries (2009). The cap and trade system, or emissions trading, is a form of economic incentive in which there is a limit or cap on the amount of emissions that a group or company can produce. They are then given credits for that limit. When it comes to carbon credits, one credit is equivalent to one metric tonne of carbon. If a company stays under the limit, they will have leftover credits which can be traded off to others for money. Companies that go over the limit will be required to purchase credits from those who have leftovers from staying under the limit. By looking at several environmental principles and laws, it can be seen that by initiating the cap and trade system, Ontario is making the right decision.

First of all, there is the Polluter Pays Principle. This principle states that the party that pollutes must pay. All industries create some form of pollution; however, some produce fewer emissions than others. The Polluter Pays Principle states that they should all pay. With the cap and trade method, it is accepted that all industries will pollute and a limit on emissions is set. Companies that pollute less are rewarded and companies that pollute more than the set limit must pay. This still coincides with the fact that polluter must pay because any company that goes over the limit must pay.

There is also the idea of Ecological Sustainability. There is a definite link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. With a change in the climate, ecosystems are under increased pressure and species will either have to adapt or will become extinct.

Next, there is the Human Rights Principle. This principle states that humans have the right to a healthy environment. Since the cap and trade system is an economic incentive, companies are more likely to reduce their emissions. Pingue and Dowd state that in Ontario, the cap and trade system will reduce emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2014 and 15% by 2020 (2009). This is mainly due to the fact that companies will be forced to reduce emissions in an effort to save money from the cap and trade system. An environment with fewer emissions would be a healthier environment and according to the Human Right Principle, we all have the right to that.

The Equity Principle must also be considered. This principle states that future generations deserve fairness and justice. In the context of the cap and trade system, this principle is very similar to the Human Rights Principle. It would not be fair to future generations if they are forced to live in a world of low air quality and climate change due to what we failed to do. Reducing emissions would prevent this and can be achieved by the cap and trade system.

This system also falls under the Precautionary Principle which states that we must take action against irreversible damage even if there is no concrete evidence. There is no concrete evidence on the effect that greenhouse gases and climate change will have on the world because it’s difficult to test. However, by reducing emissions through the cap and trade system, we can prevent any irreversible damage that could occur due to emissions and climate change.

The cap and trade system is a good example of an economic incentive. Sometimes, economics and the environment can be seen as two polar ends of a spectrum. However, by applying several key environmental principles, it can be seen that implementing a cap and trade program in Ontario could be very beneficial to the environment.

References

Pingue, F. and Dowd, A. 2009. Ontario introduces cap and trade legislation. Reuters, [Online], <http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54Q4AU20090527>, Accessed November 2009.

Reducing green house gas emissions using regulatory control

Environmental News Network summarizes the findings of a United Nation Environment Program (UNEP) study that analyzed the efficiency of using different policy tools to reduce green house gas emissions caused by buildings. It concluded that a regulatory control policy would be most effective.

The UNEP states that a regulatory control policy can effectively target energy efficiency in buildings. The study compared twenty different types of policy tools, including economic incentive, and concluded that regulatory and control instruments such as building codes and appliance standards are the best way to reduce energy use in buildings. The UNEP admits that for this policy to be effective sufficient resources and effort need to be in invested in order to implement and enforce these policies resourcefully.

If economic incentive were to be used to cut green house gas emissions by reducing energy consumption, an optimal energy use level would have to be determined. Then a permit system would have to be devised and implemented in order to reach the optimal level. A tax or fee could also be used to control the amount of energy being used. Using economic incentive could be more problematic since determining an optimal energy consumption level would be difficult. Different buildings, whether they are residential or commercial, will use different amounts of energy. Two factories that have production on the same scale could use very different amounts of energy to produce the same revenue. If a tax or fee system would be implemented it could possibly be more profitable for a firm to simply pay the fee and continue consuming energy. Also, it would be very costly to have to monitor such a vast amount of buildings of all different types.

It seems that the most effective way to decrease energy consumption is to require an increase in efficiency. This can be simply done by using better insulation or windows in buildings and using more energy-efficient appliances. This could also encourage the use of renewable energy such as solar panels or solar water heating to reduce a building’s energy consumption. A regulatory policy would give quicker results without having to monitor individual energy use and it would promote sustainable housing, research in improving energy efficiency, or at least the use of energy-efficient technologies. An economic incentive policy would require either a tax or permit system, would result in high costs to monitor energy use, and would be difficult to establish an appropriate energy level. As concluded by the UNEP regulation control would be a better approach to reducing green house gas emissions through improving energy efficiency in buildings.

"Sustainable Housing and Green Building News:." Environmental News Network -- Know Your Environment. Environmental News Network, 24 Sept. 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. .

Keeping One Hand on the Gas Valve

Alister Doyle’s article, “Binding climate treaty may slip far into 2010”, Doyle explains a recent international treaty which is currently going through the decision process at the United Nations which aims to limit global greenhouse gas emissions by creating rules and regulations which all countries must follow. As outlined in the article, there are a number of conflicts slowing the conclusion of this binding treaty. These conflicts include the bill to pass carbon-capping laws which is also currently under review in the United States, and the conflict surrounding how the wealthier countries and poorer countries share the costs associated with the treaty.
An international treaty such as this is a perfect example of regulatory control with respect to climate change, as it regulates the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted globally by requiring the countries of the world to comply with a certain set of restrictions. The obvious major positive side to this method is that it would result in a severe reduction of the harmful greenhouse gasses emitted by our world. A negative aspect to this approach is that many countries will be forced to change the way they do such things as manufacturing for example. This could be especially hard on developing countries, because with the limited means which they are already given, changing the way such things are done could be impossible.
An alternative method which could be implemented in order to control greenhouse gas emissions is the use of economic incentives. In this method, a system could be established where a country would suffer an economic penalty per increment of emissions produced above a designated amount. Again, this has the obvious positive result of having a great chance of severely cutting global emissions. Another benefit that could be offered by this method is that it could be more efficient for poorer countries. The economic penalty could be country specific, meaning each country would have different penalty which would be suitable for them specifically (for example, Canada would have a much larger economic penalty compared to a developing country because Canada can afford it much easier.) A downside to this method is that, particularly in the current trying economic times, is that while losing money would provide incentive to reduce the countries emissions, it would also result in a lot of money being siphoned out of countries all over the world, which has the potential to create a poverty crisis.
Of the two methods discussed above, I would have to say I prefer the regulatory policy. While the strategy based around providing economic incentives would likely inspire a great deal of improvement, it is likely that it could have a harmful or even crippling effect on a country’s economy. While the problem of forcing countries to change things such as their manufacturing methods exists with regulatory control, and while this problem does have many implications for poorer countries, the treaty used in this method can take that into consideration in order to ensure that the poorer countries are treated justly.

References:

Doyle, Alister. "Binding climate treaty may slip far into 2010." Canada.com (2009). 17 Nov. 2009. Wed. 18 Nov. 2009.