As the article by Susan Raymond addressing Al Gore’s choice to donate 100% of his salary to a the Alliance for Climate Protection (a nonprofit environmental organization) points out, alliances between businesses and nonprofits can have huge financial benefits for nonprofits. Raymond’s article also pointed out that the market for things like environmental technology are becoming more common, however, I was surprised when I read that the environment is such a small percentage of the nonprofit sector. Currently, only 2% of all philanthropic giving goes to environmental nonprofits so maybe as the environment becomes a more popular and pressing issue, this percentage will go up.
Additionally, Susan Raymond’s discussion of SO2 emissions reminded me of the system of cap and trade, which the video I included gives a biased but good explanation of. The narrator addresses that is a good thing for companies and governments to come together in the name of curbing emissions but goes on to show the unfortunate situation that has come out of cap and trade. One such danger she refers to as “cap and give away” which, in Europe, actually caused carbon emissions to go up. In spite of the rise in emissions, the companies who were polluting made huge profits. This serves as just one example of how, when left to the market, good intentions can lead to scams and other types of corruption. Successfully moving the global economy away from fossil fuel dependency and other sources of environmental degradation depends heavily on the involvement of corporations and markets, but the “distractions” that the narrator of the cap and trade video points out are creating huge obstacles.
In theory, bridging the gap between environment and business is positive, but it is not always good in practice. I do not intend to be pessimistic but I do think it is important to be critical. The new opportunities emerging in sustainable business are very exciting, but if we fail to addresses the important questions there will be more quick fixes than actual solutions to the world’s environmental problems.
The McKenzie Watershed Council is a good example of how making relationships can produce good results. As stated in the MWC’s 2008 report, “The Council is comprised of partners representing a broad array of interests: government entities, utilities, commercial and recreational interests, conservation organizations, schools and residents”. Having so many different organizations as part of the board and making meetings open to the public is a great model to follow, for it allows the MWC to make sure that everyone who is dependent on or affected by the McKenzie river basin gets a say in how it is maintained. The MWC also supports the local economy: "Of the total FY 2008 expenditures, over 85% was spent within Lane County through the use of local contractors and ground crews and the purchasing of restoration materials and other program supplies from local suppliers". They extend their positive community impact by holding educational programs to obtain their goal of promoting community understanding and stewardship. By allowing so many diverse agendas and opinions to be a part of decision-making processes, the MWC can ensure that all the important questions can be asked and truly beneficial decisions can be made.
The McKenzie Watershed Council is a good example of how making relationships can produce good results. As stated in the MWC’s 2008 report, “The Council is comprised of partners representing a broad array of interests: government entities, utilities, commercial and recreational interests, conservation organizations, schools and residents”. Having so many different organizations as part of the board and making meetings open to the public is a great model to follow, for it allows the MWC to make sure that everyone who is dependent on or affected by the McKenzie river basin gets a say in how it is maintained. The MWC also supports the local economy: "Of the total FY 2008 expenditures, over 85% was spent within Lane County through the use of local contractors and ground crews and the purchasing of restoration materials and other program supplies from local suppliers". They extend their positive community impact by holding educational programs to obtain their goal of promoting community understanding and stewardship. By allowing so many diverse agendas and opinions to be a part of decision-making processes, the MWC can ensure that all the important questions can be asked and truly beneficial decisions can be made.
Cap and trade is a topic which interests me a lot. You mentioned how the policy in theory should work but how a number of other problems undermined its sucess. Given the global market, we need to focus on multilateral approaches; China and India are not complying as the United States and E.U. are. It seems to put us at a trade advantage, we should try to penalize them, such as placing tariffs on their goods for example. We are the leading hedgemonic power and should use our influence while we still have it. I feel like cap and trade should work but we need to level the playing field by creating further rules and having stricter penalties on those who do not comply. Most of the other arguments surrounding cost seem tipical of any regulation but in a perfectly competitive environment it would be moot. Sure, the cost of goods may go up, or energy costs; it just seems like regulation is a necessary evil. Imagine the improved social benefit if we could successfully implement environmental regulation. We need to start somewhere, perhaps cap and trade is too advanced, but it seems like something that COULD work once we work out the glitches.
ReplyDeleteCommenting real breifly on the articles, Hawken's mentions "going green"; what does that really mean? It says to me that we as consumers can make choices on where we buy our products. We need to use this power to influence companies to act friendly towards the environment. The problem I had with this was the fact I am not completely informed as a consumer, perhaps we need labeling, such as a sticker from a trusted source. Further, the economic cost may make it difficult for some to use their influence as consumers. I feel like we need greater education and leadership to steer consumers in the right direction. In the competitive market of business firms will only only *self-regulate to the point where the benefits are equal or greater to the costs.
All in all, I feel like taking multiple approaches to pollution would produce the most results. I would place the largest amount of blame on the economic aspect surrounding regulation. It seems that we need to make regulation universal before serious change can improve.
I'm a fan of cap and trade and think that it can often be a good solution to curbing pollution. Now, that being said I agree that often in practice it does not work out as well as it does conceptually. However, I do not necessarily consider the idea a panacea, nor do many of its supporters. I know there are optimists out there who expect it to change the world but in order for it to work in practice there needs to be a change in how it's administered. It is a great idea in that it makes it so businesses do not necessarily shoulder a full burden of a tax but rather an incentive to be sustainable. I feel as though developing nations need a holiday from compliance until they have the capacity to be sustainable. Historically, developing nations have not been as much of pollutors and therefore deserve to be afforded a feasable transition through a gradual process. This would be similar to the compliance mechanism in the Montreal Protocol and what is trying to be done in the Kyoto Protocol.
ReplyDeletehttp://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/greenhouse_gas_emissions/cap_and_trade/index.html
Like all government activities, I am very curious and often weary of such programs as Cap and Trade. While researching the implications behind the Waxman-Markey bill, I stumbled upon a 22-page report by famed economists Arthur Laffer and Wayne Winegarden titled "The Adverse Economic Impacts of Cap-and-Trade Regulations." In this report, Laffer and Winegarden found that cap and trade regulations inherently create more price volatility in the GHG (Greenhouse gas emissions) allowance market and impose a large cost on the U.S. economy.
ReplyDeleteMore notable, Laffer and Winegarden stated that fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) provide 86% of current U.S. energy needs. "It is not currently feasible for the alternative energy sources to significantly expand their energy contribution sufficiently in the near-term tosubstitute for the demand growth."
The obvious solution to sustaining a natural ecological cycle and maintain a healthy supply of resources would be to relinquish our dependency on oil and develop/mass produce a cleaner source of energy. As we can see in China and Europe, behaviorial and financial regulations on carbon emissions have not changed our behavior, nor have they reduced the level of harmful emissions. I, however, also believe that notes of encouragement from people like Hawken do make a difference in behavior and attitude toward the environment.
Laffer and Winegarden:
http://www.junkscience.com/Cap_and_Trade_Economic_Analysis_September_2007.pdf
I like Paul Hawken's speech and how as college students we need to be more aware of our environment and to be more eco-friendly. I too feel that the environment is such a small percentage of the nonprofit sector because its a new sector but also its expensive to promote the technology. The cap and trade system is not really effective, like your video pointed out. I think it's only a temporary system and government need to produce a system that is benefit towards people, not business. I agree that this system produces more pollution and gives more profit to companies. For future generation, it is important that organization work with government, business, and other commercial interests in order to produce effective outcome.
ReplyDelete