As more countries join the global race to the top, researchers are noticing the effects rapid growth is having on the environment. Although governments rely on industry to support growing economies and provide for the well-being of its citizens it comes at the cost of polluting the air and depleting the ozone (A&B). A study by Lo, Sheu and Hu (2005) demonstrates the delicate nature of this relationship as fast-developing Asian countries are faced with pressure from outside forces to reform industry practices that would reduce rising CO2 emissions. Conflict arises when environmental considerations such as these lead to an increase in production costs or hinder economic expansion. Governments face major opposition from business leaders and industry representatives who only see declining profit margins as a result of the cap and trade system or requiring the installation of new technologies that reduce environmental impacts. Unfortunately, corporate big wigs are not the only players that need convincing. Oftentimes, the political party in power has a different agenda (i.e. the Bush administration) that slows progress toward a global solution (A&B). Bush’s decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2005 illustrates the lack of political cohesion that often defines this policy area (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8422343/). Even when there is consensus among a decision-making body formulating a policy is still the ultimate challenge. For example, nations are still struggling to finalize a Global Climate Pact and many fear it will not happen until late next year (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B0GV20101013).
In some cases it is simply a matter of logistics as we saw in the article by Jiricka and Probstl (2007). Although the governments of the member states being examined were on board with the SEA they encountered problems during the implementation process. This is one of the main problems facing the EU.
Although it has become the leader in environmental policy, not all of its policy goals can be attained by every member state (A&B).
One of the difficulties of environmental policy is that it often places restrictions in other areas. Vivero and Mateos (2010) explore this concept using the geopolitical realities of BRIC countries. These countries must find a way to integrate technological-environmental policy without sacrificing potential economic-commercial and political power. The push and pull factors are tremendous when you consider the repercussions of losing political bargaining chips like maritime resources and territory.
Ultimately, governments cannot approach environmental policy the same way they approach other policy areas because it relies on a belief system that not everybody agrees with. One would be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with the importance of education or the value of fiscal responsibility, however supporting an agenda under the pretense of a “what if” scenario takes more convincing. While we have made great strides in protecting the environment there is still much more to do.
Lindsey-
ReplyDeleteI am sure Joni Mitchell would appreciate this blog. I, too, believe the main factor differentiating environmental policy from others is its implications in necessitating global cooperation. As I discuss in my blog, it is not only industrialized countries that take issue with the possible economic barriers they might incur if they adhere to Kyoto standards. It is also third world countries, who, because of labor standards and overhead cost, find “green” practices to be too fiscally restraining, endangering their possibility of expansion. A&B note that “the ideology of the governing party in a country often determines the nature of policy reform” (A&B, 2011). I find this interesting because, as you state the Bush administration was negligent if not hostile, towards environmental policy reform, yet, I also believe there is a more deeply rooted sentiment in the American psyche that relates back to our push for “rugged individualism.” Although America has moved away from many of its isolationist policies, the country still views itself as set apart, and to make such broad pacts such as the Kyoto protocol, Americans might view it as a move towards a loss of individual freedom, instead of a step forward in the movement towards a “green” international community.