Should Industry pay for Emissions?
With the present resurgence of 'Green' concerns across our nation, I am hoping to receive comments on this idea which has been popular on and off for at least the past few years.
Many environmental activists argue that citizens should not bear the responsibility of emission costs, but that cost should be passed on to the industries which produce emissions.
This approach was a key aspect of Kyoto, but certainly can be a hot topic when considered on both the national and international level.
My personal view is that this approach simply won't make a difference. My reasoning is that if companies have to pay for their emissions, they will do so... and pass on the cost to the consumer. Given that every individal and business relies on products created through processes creating emissions, there won't actually be any incentive for companies to change their habits. On the flip side, the likely result is that we as consumers will simply stop supporting our own industries and instead purchase from companies overseas who are likely-as-not engaged in activities worse than those domestically.
Clearly, it is not a core-competency of the fossil fuel-based industries to eliminate their basis of existence, and we need that industry for our continued existence at least in the short term. For this reason, my belief is that the plan aimed at developing new forms of energy needs to be the first step so that the environment and the economy can be upheld in partnership.
My thought is that we need to encourage investment in research and development in this sector. As this is developed and promoted as a national interest the more harmful industrial practices can be phased out. The investment should be chaired by the current 'offending' companies, as this way these companies can be a part of change and find their profits gradually shifting to new and less harmful methods of production. There is little doubt that the technology and science exists, the problem is that is simply isn't profitable. The reason for this: we are petroleum-addicts and aren't willing to take on alternative action. If this is to be our goal as a country, then we should get the energy giants on side rather than trying to penalize them for providing us with exactly what we have asked them to provide us with. They are not the 'bad guys', consumers are, and as such we need to work together to produce new and challenging ways to foster mankind's future.
As a middle power in the world, it is up to countries like Canada to set an example for smaller powers and to collaboratively put pressure on larger powers, to make a change. And within this country, it will be us - the young and upcoming members of the political and business community - who will have to put in the effort on this project.
For an article on the issue from the G&M please see the following link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070110.wxenviron10/BNStory/National/home
Many environmental activists argue that citizens should not bear the responsibility of emission costs, but that cost should be passed on to the industries which produce emissions.
This approach was a key aspect of Kyoto, but certainly can be a hot topic when considered on both the national and international level.
My personal view is that this approach simply won't make a difference. My reasoning is that if companies have to pay for their emissions, they will do so... and pass on the cost to the consumer. Given that every individal and business relies on products created through processes creating emissions, there won't actually be any incentive for companies to change their habits. On the flip side, the likely result is that we as consumers will simply stop supporting our own industries and instead purchase from companies overseas who are likely-as-not engaged in activities worse than those domestically.
Clearly, it is not a core-competency of the fossil fuel-based industries to eliminate their basis of existence, and we need that industry for our continued existence at least in the short term. For this reason, my belief is that the plan aimed at developing new forms of energy needs to be the first step so that the environment and the economy can be upheld in partnership.
My thought is that we need to encourage investment in research and development in this sector. As this is developed and promoted as a national interest the more harmful industrial practices can be phased out. The investment should be chaired by the current 'offending' companies, as this way these companies can be a part of change and find their profits gradually shifting to new and less harmful methods of production. There is little doubt that the technology and science exists, the problem is that is simply isn't profitable. The reason for this: we are petroleum-addicts and aren't willing to take on alternative action. If this is to be our goal as a country, then we should get the energy giants on side rather than trying to penalize them for providing us with exactly what we have asked them to provide us with. They are not the 'bad guys', consumers are, and as such we need to work together to produce new and challenging ways to foster mankind's future.
As a middle power in the world, it is up to countries like Canada to set an example for smaller powers and to collaboratively put pressure on larger powers, to make a change. And within this country, it will be us - the young and upcoming members of the political and business community - who will have to put in the effort on this project.
For an article on the issue from the G&M please see the following link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070110.wxenviron10/BNStory/National/home
posted by AcceptanceSpeech at 6:01 AM
2 Comments:
Europe has the right idea on environmental conservation. It is the consumers who actively try to conserve energy. The cost of hydro is higher, however the consumers are making an effort. For instance, they turn off power when their not using it, turn off the shower while they are shampooing their hair, etc. These things may seem trivial, but they all add up.
It's not just the consumers either, in Europe the business offices turn off their power at night when they are not in use. I hate going through Toronto at night and seeing all the offices with all their lights on, or even stores who leave their lights on at night. Just such a waste.
Also on the environment, Harper's Clean Air act has been highly criticized, as it is not effective and is just stalling businesses from being more environmentally sound. The act doesn't change anything that current legislation already has. The other day, Dion met with businesses about the value of going green. He is promoting the fact that business can thrive under these new policies if tackled correctly.
I'd like to suggest that you watch Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. It's about global warming and has a lot of research presented in it (and a few small jokes about the previous presidential elections).
Post a Comment
<< Home