Poverty and Pollution, Essay Example

There is a sizable relationship between pollution and poverty. The extensive work shows that many nations globally have not been able to reduce pollution on their environment because of the probing poverty. However, it is evident that these poor nations were finally able to deal with the problem of pollution a time. This means that poverty slows down the efforts made to abate poverty.

Everyone has a moral right to live in a pollution free environment. Therefore, the term moral means that the rights come with some duties, or obligations. Rights and moral therefore are of the same side in any argument. It is also a constitutional right for any citizen to enjoy staying in a clean environment. The international environmental law recognizes the importance of people to stay in a clean environment (Adamkiewicz et al, 2012). Their main objective surrounds fauna and flora, its protection and balance. Further, duties are imposed on the government but it will be rewarding if citizens will take environmental conservation as a duty besides having a right to live in a clean environment. Besides, civil societies and the private sector should actively champion pollution reduction. Every constitution should also declare duty to every individual to conserve the environment. Consequently, the right of enjoying the same environment comes in. Most communities obtain their live hood directly from the environment. A clean environment will ensure that such people do not suffer while using the natural resources to sustain their living. Arguably, life in any country starts in the midst of nature. In whichever country, processes, activities, or structures should be available to ensure that such life evolves with least disturbance. All people are the same irrespective of their different nationalities. What every person seeks is happiness whilst living in a clean environment.

The widening gap between the rich and the poor states is becoming very significant. It is pertinent to note that the poverty levels weaken the ability of a nation to deal with environmental degradation. Some of the pollutants that find their way to the poorer states have their sources in the richer nations. The rich nations injure the poor ones by releasing the greenhouse gases, which use a lot of their hard- earned revenue in dealing with this problem. They take advantage of pollution dilemmas in third world countries, with low pollution regulations, to dump waste. Some companies put up industries in the third world nations that emit harmful wastes. This way, they run away from home where pollution regulations are tough. This is why richer nations should help the poorer ones develop green energy and help in regulation. Green industries developed in the poorer industry means that the global green house effect declines. This directly benefits the rich nations in their endeavor to deal with this problem.

The obligation of richer nations to assist poor ones is practical and is because it is simple. The rich nations should lessen the import tariff to the poorer nations. This will enormously encourage industrialization because less is spent in importing (Speaks et al, 2012). In addition, the poor nations are supposed to be included in the negotiations of multilateral trade, which seems not to be transparent. Green energy in under developed countries will lessen climate change. This therefore calls for the action of the rich nations, and should actually be a worldwide policy in poor nations, which should actively be championed by rich nations. Green industries in the poor nation have a smart development future owing to the development gap that already exists. Investors from rich nations would be able to do investments and thus benefiting a lot. The amount of help cannot measure; but it is what they are willing to do if they cared.

The overall environmental pollution control requires measures globally, and in the past, it was been done traditionally. However, economic strategic control instruments are more effective. These instruments have been found to very effective at lower costs, and gives firms a greater flexibility and freedom to comply with, than their direct regulation counterparts. Economists themselves support economic instruments because they believe pollution starts because of the market failure. Industries and plants are set up and after manufacturing has taken place, waste is released to rivers because it is free. Those who depend on rivers for a living are prone to suffer. Market failure occurs due to failure by various Plants to treating their wastes before discharge. Austin suggests that instead, a factory would invest in some technology that produces less waste or implement an end-of-pipe solution by using a fraction of the effluent charges. An economic instrument adds charge to released effluent to force the management to include it in its decision-making plans.

Many forms economic instruments can help rebate global pollution. Charges and fees payable on the amount of waste products discharged is one of the key interments. Although it is difficult to measure the amount pollutant that is released to the environment, there are mechanisms that are used to determine that. For example, the type of products leading to such effluent or the inputs that produce the product could be used (Speaks et al, 2012). In addition, the amount of the input that is directly related to the pollutant can be used. For example, carbon based pollutants may be taxed higher because if a process involves burning, all the Carbon dioxide produced is released.

Trade permits can also be used. They differ from fee payable by virtue of being fixed rather than payable on the amount of pollutant. However, the two can be imposed at the same time. Deposit-refund plans have also been used in drinks containers where, if the polluting part of a product is returned to a collection site, refunds of the surcharge are made. Subsidies are not taxes and are aimed at rewarding those who are championing pollution reduction by taking action and doing so. It involves moving funds to industry. Economic instruments are efficient in that they are a source of revenue to government bodies and are cheaper in the end. Economic instruments should not be seen as crude ways of controlling pollution. It should be merged well with business ethics. Business leaders should not only focus on profits but also the environment. Business should play some sought of green shades. Conservation barriers could include regulatory mindset where the environment is seen as that of policy and hence disregards the idea that voluntary initiatives are possible protecting the environment. Cost mind set views protecting the  environment as having costs and benefits and as everybody would have it, we go to a point where benefits outweighs cost thus leaving no room for innovation. The innovative business mindset has it that we should create a green environment for the customer (Jana, 2009). Nowadays, customers prefer products made with the environment in mind. Companies should strive to create environmental principles to be the basis of operation. All should work together to ensure environmental and business ethics work in harmony. Business ethics plays a critical role, as we cannot leave the environmental issues to the government.

References

Adamkiewicz, G., Zota, A. R., Fabian, M. P., Chahine, T., Julien, R., Spengler, J. D., & Levy, J. I. (2012). Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 101 (1) pS238-S245. 8p.

Jana, B. (2009). Managing the downstream pollution problems and poverty reduction in the tropical developing world: Relying on the integration of nature’s library, traditional knowledge and ecological sanitation In, Ecological Engineering: from Concepts to Application. Journal of Procedia Environmental Sciences. Vol 2 (1) 9:201-208.

Speaks, J. T., Thomas, E. C., &Thompson, L. M. (2012). Household Air Pollution From Cooking Fires: A Challenge for Nurses Globally and a Call to Action.  Journal of Community Health Nursing. Vol. 29 (4), p236-244. 9p.