In recent years, a number of farmers have begun fertilizing their land with sludge, a bi-product of sewage and other wastes from municipal wastewater treatment facilities. As outlined in an article by renowned author Holly Dressel, posted on this blog, the small Quebec town of Elgin recently adopted a by-law banning sludge use. The by-law was challenged by a local farm wishing to use sludge, with the backing of a multinational waste management company that sells sludge to farmers. The case went to a Quebec Superior Court where the town set a legal precedent when the judge upheld the by-law. Judge Steve J. Reimnitz, in his decision on the case, invoked the precautionary principle, writing “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”. I believe the application of the precautionary principle is appropriate in the case.
The primary concern raised by Elgin citizens (and that which influences my support of the judge’s decision) is that sludge has been shown to contain toxic substances including pathogens like flu or E. Coli, medications, hormones, dangerous chemicals and heavy metals from small industries and the de-inking process of paper recycling. These heavy metals can sterilize soils and render them useless or even dangerous for crop production. The sludge, which is shown to often wash into nearby water systems, poses further threats of measurable negative effects to the environment. Given my biocentric view of the environment, I would claim that these negative effects stand to cause harm to a number of the living things in the surrounding area, and downstream. I am often reluctant to stand behind the precautionary principle, but in this case, I believe the amount of evidence supporting the potential for harm or damage warrants its application.
As Dressel points out, Canada’s water treatment systems are unable to remove many of the harmful substances described. So, after sludge began to be used on farms in the early 1990s, a number of human deaths occurred from pathogen-contaminated sludge. Also, a number of dairy herds were sickened by pastures treated with sludge. Researchers at the Cornell Waste Management Institute stated, in an assessment, that "The sheer number of dangers associated with treating sludge as if it were a fertilizer is so great, so various and so serious that it would be the life work of thousands of professionals to divide up and respond to the categories of problems that will arise from this practice." As I discussed in my previous blog post “Degradation of Cootes Paradise”, a recent study by Environment Canada found high levels of dangerous chemicals in the dumping sites of municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge. This discharge is similar to the sludge used as fertilizer. The study described a number of harmful effects of these chemicals on many organisms.
Sludge offers farmers an alternative form of fertilizer at a cheaper price. Aside from the cost benefits, the advantages of sludge over traditional fertilizer are debatable. However, the negative effects are becoming more apparent, though they may not always be felt by the farmers who save money by using sludge. Regardless, the widespread application of sludge on vast expanses of farmland creates the potential for environmental damage and irreversible harm on a large scale. In accordance with the precautionary principle, this practice should not be allowed.
References:
http://vernonsludge.blogspot.com/2009/10/whats-happening-in-quebec-block-that.html
http://gmeansgreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/degradation-of-cootes-paradise.html
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Polluter Pays Principle and Waste Management
Everyone must do their part in the prevention, reduction and clean-up of pollution, and large companies and industries are not spared from this obligation. When industries are creating large amounts of pollution, the government makes them pay for the damage they have done to the environment and for the control and prevention of future pollution. The money that the government makes them pay is part of a principle enforced by the government called the polluter pays principle (as discussed in Sharon Beder’s “Principles and Policies”). This is a concept that is discussed in the blog “Pollution partners not all paragons” written by Ellen Ley on November 22, 2009. Ley talks about the new rules being enforced in Indiana, which state that industries, companies and households that are producing pollution, must pay the government for damage control and to prevent further harm to the environment. Many large companies are talked about in the blog and they are criticized for being big polluters. They have had to pay money to the government for the amount of pollution they have created. Some of these companies include Duke Energy, General Motors and BP products.
The polluter pays principle is enforced in a strict sense which means that the polluter must pay for the cost of pollution control equipment, the cost of government infrastructure and services for the reduction of pollution, and in some cases for the administration for the government to oversee pollution control. The pollution pays principle is a sort of economic incentive because the companies are allowed to diminish their pollution however they want, but they must pay money if they do not reduce it enough. The companies mentioned by Ley were among the top 25 companies and industries that were discharging pollution into Indiana’s lakes and rivers in 2007. Because of this, the government is making them pay for clean-up of the streams and lakes and they must pay for new technology to make their companies and industries more eco-friendly in order for them to create less pollution. The companies mentioned were not managing the waste they were producing in environmentally safe ways at all, so they must be the ones who pay for the damage they have caused to the lakes and streams.
The largest steel manufacturing facility in the Western Hemisphere which is located on the shores of Lake Michigan has to follow the polluter pays principle also, because it is producing huge amounts of pollution. The steel manufacturing facility is called ArcelorMittal and it had put more than 200,000 pounds of toxins in the air as of 2007. Ley says, “All told, ArcelorMittal’s plants participating in the program have been fined more than $100,000 since 1997, according to the IDEM records” (2009). In my opinion, these companies should be forced to pay for the large amounts of pollution that they are creating because sooner or later someone is going to have to pay to have it cleaned up, so it might as well be the ones causing the problems.
The polluter pays principle works well for companies who are not managing their waste properly because it forces them to think about how much they are polluting. No company is going to want to spend more money than they have to, so it is good economic incentive for them to cut down on their waste and to handle it in cleaner fashions.
References
Beder, S. Environmental Principles and Policies- An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan, 2006.
Ley, E. Pollution partners not all paragons. A Greener Indiana, 22 November 2009. http://www.agreenerindiana.com/forum/topics/pollution-partners-not-all. Accessed 23 November 2009.
The Need for Environmental Justice
Throughout history it has become evident that communities of minorities have had to suffer the burden of pollution from landfills, incinerators, sewage treatment plants and chemical industries. This is mainly due to the fact that large companies want to find the cheapest and least resistant areas for their dumping grounds, causing minority communities to become sacrificial zones for the benefit of these companies. Dickson, a small town in Tennessee, has become the focal point of this particular environmental racism issue. For years the Holt family has claimed that the poisons from a local Dickson landfill have caused some of them to acquire potentially deadly diseases, including cancer. In 2003, the family took legal action for compensation, but it remains unclear who is at fault for their mistreatment. The article “NAACP Hold Rally; Claims Toxic Well Poisoned Black Families” published by the Associated Press describes the controversial issue that is at hand, as well as the legal evidence that demonstrates the carelessness of the landfill company, the city, and the country.
The proof demonstrating that this family was a victim of environmental racism lies within the fact that their Caucasian neighbours were advised not to drink the well water. Unlike the Holt family, white members of the community were informed that their water contained the toxic chemical trichloroethylene, which was leaking from the landfill, making the water unsafe to drink. Furthermore, the owners of the landfill who resided across the street from the Holts knowingly allowed local African American families to bathe, drink and cook with the contaminated water (Associated Press, 2009).
This negligence can be connected with the equity principle, and more specifically, intragenerational equity. The latter includes justice and the considerations of what is fair for people within any one nation (Beder, 2006) and it is apparent that this principle was not correctly applied to all members who resided in the Dickson community. It is one thing that the neighbours did not inform the Holts of the contaminated water, but it is discriminative and illegal for the landfill company not to educate the entire community on the conditions of the water. If the equity principle was applied correctly, the community at large would have been informed about the issue, no matter their ethnicity or race.
This dispute also touches on human rights, which are entitlements based on morality, justice and fairness that all people ought to have (Beder, 2006). The rights of all people, including the Holt family, can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This includes a person’s right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family (Beder, 2006). All of the families living within the community had the right to be informed of the chemicals that were leaking into the well water, and by failing to do so, the landfill company neglected these rights.
The main cause behind this controversy is that the Holt family did not receive the environmental justice they were entitled to. This term includes “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures and income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and programs and policies” (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). In part, this means that no racial group should possess an unequal share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial operations. If this justice was initiated in the first place, family members would not have used the contaminated water, preventing the deadly diseases that were acquired.
Unfortunately, the Holt’s story is not the first incident concerning environmental racism. In fact, a US Environmental Protection Agency study found that “black Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighbourhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger” (Beder, 2006). Due to statistics such as this and inequities such as the Holt’s story, environmental justice has become a public issue, especially in the United States. By creating awareness of the environmental racism that occurred in Dickson, it will be shown how important it is that all people be given the equity and rights that they are entitled to.
References
The Associated Press. (2009) NAACP Hold Rally; Claims Toxic Well Poisoned Black Families. September 2009. http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11082691. Accessed 22 November 2009.
Beder, Sharon. 2006. “Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction.” University of New South Whales Press Ltd.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008) Environmental Equity and Human Resources. http://www.ateec.org/publ/critical_issues/ci-environ.cfm. Accessed 23 November 2009.
The proof demonstrating that this family was a victim of environmental racism lies within the fact that their Caucasian neighbours were advised not to drink the well water. Unlike the Holt family, white members of the community were informed that their water contained the toxic chemical trichloroethylene, which was leaking from the landfill, making the water unsafe to drink. Furthermore, the owners of the landfill who resided across the street from the Holts knowingly allowed local African American families to bathe, drink and cook with the contaminated water (Associated Press, 2009).
This negligence can be connected with the equity principle, and more specifically, intragenerational equity. The latter includes justice and the considerations of what is fair for people within any one nation (Beder, 2006) and it is apparent that this principle was not correctly applied to all members who resided in the Dickson community. It is one thing that the neighbours did not inform the Holts of the contaminated water, but it is discriminative and illegal for the landfill company not to educate the entire community on the conditions of the water. If the equity principle was applied correctly, the community at large would have been informed about the issue, no matter their ethnicity or race.
This dispute also touches on human rights, which are entitlements based on morality, justice and fairness that all people ought to have (Beder, 2006). The rights of all people, including the Holt family, can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This includes a person’s right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family (Beder, 2006). All of the families living within the community had the right to be informed of the chemicals that were leaking into the well water, and by failing to do so, the landfill company neglected these rights.
The main cause behind this controversy is that the Holt family did not receive the environmental justice they were entitled to. This term includes “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures and income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and programs and policies” (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). In part, this means that no racial group should possess an unequal share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial operations. If this justice was initiated in the first place, family members would not have used the contaminated water, preventing the deadly diseases that were acquired.
Unfortunately, the Holt’s story is not the first incident concerning environmental racism. In fact, a US Environmental Protection Agency study found that “black Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighbourhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger” (Beder, 2006). Due to statistics such as this and inequities such as the Holt’s story, environmental justice has become a public issue, especially in the United States. By creating awareness of the environmental racism that occurred in Dickson, it will be shown how important it is that all people be given the equity and rights that they are entitled to.
References
The Associated Press. (2009) NAACP Hold Rally; Claims Toxic Well Poisoned Black Families. September 2009. http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11082691. Accessed 22 November 2009.
Beder, Sharon. 2006. “Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction.” University of New South Whales Press Ltd.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008) Environmental Equity and Human Resources. http://www.ateec.org/publ/critical_issues/ci-environ.cfm. Accessed 23 November 2009.
Cigarettes and your fish
http://news.discovery.com/earth/cigarette-butts-tobacco-fish.html
We have all seen those carelessly tossed cigarette butts lying on the pavement, walked by them, thinking of all the bad habits they represent. We all know the dangers of smoking and we’re pretty sure there’s a good amount of chemicals in that one sleazy roll of paper more than enough to poison the average human being. What we haven’t thought of, or thought in good amount of, is what happens to that little poison capsule after its been discarded. In an article, “Cigarette Butts Toxic to Fish” by Michael Reilly, the unhappy ending of that one cigarette butt is explored and its implied negative effects on the environment via a recent study done are explored.
“A single cigarette butt soaked for a day is enough to . . . kill 50% of the fish swimming in it. “ (Reilly 2009) This is an alarming factoid, considering the number of cigarette butts usually found littered across beaches. Also alarming is the fact that this kind of reaction usually takes 4 smoke filters to provoke the same end (Reilly 2009). A cause of concern is that many of these cigarette butts are also littered where they can easily contaminate the water systems their smokers have recently enjoyed. Precautionary principle would tell us that the future costs of cleaning up the amount of chemicals contaminating our water systems brought on by the carelessness of smokers would be more than enough reason to put into action some plans to stop its progression.
In fact there has been talk of banning smoking on beaches by various municipalities, a clear example of regulatory control being put into effect. However just simply having government regulation may not be as effective as educating the public first on how cigarettes affect the environment. Though government regulation is effective in keeping individuals who simply do not care from causing further harm. Especially if there is a fine involved.
There are also ethical issues to consider. Though there have long been places set aside for smokers to do their thing, who are we to tell someone where they can or cannot smoke. In a utilitarianistic view however, the majority of us are much happier, and probably the environment too, if smokers kept their activities as far away from us as possible. Its also ethically unfair to have non smoker suffer from the adverse affects of second hand smoke, and similarly unfair to have no concern of what those deadly chemicals in each little cigarette can do to the animals around us. Especially disconcerting when we do tend to eat fish, and fish filled with chemicals such as nicotine and poisonous benzenes suddenly do not seem as healthy or appetizing.
If you could help keep the ecosystems around you pristine with something as simple as making sure a cigarette butt is disposed properly, would you? I don’t believe it’s too much to ask. Now that more research is being done on the negative affects cigarettes have on not only us humans but other animals as well, it makes us more conscious of the little choices we make everyday in life. A simple regulation put in place does seem the best solution to this problem, but also increasing awareness of the dangers of cigarettes would help create a public knowledge that might actually give people a reason to quit. Not to mention we’ll be able to keep eating that well loved fish.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
E- waste and the Equity principle
Electronic waste or E-waste is a major problem for the 21st century. Since the 1990’s, relatively cheap electronic technology has been made available to the public and this has lead to some serious repercussions. With new and improved models appearing every couple months consumers are pressured to upgrade their “old” models. In the USA alone, 350,000 cell phones and 130,000 computers are thrown out every day (Walsh 2009). As a result E-waste is becoming a major component of solid waste. E-waste is even worse than household solid waste because of the nasty combination of toxic chemicals such as mercury and lead, which if improperly disposed of can cause serious health problems for both the local environment and local human populations. For humans, these heavy metals bioaccumlate in the body and cause a range of neurological disorders.
Only 20% of the American population recycles its E-waste, but despite this effort, some recycling companies ship the waste to developing nations(Walsh 2009). Once in these countries the E-waste goes to poor people, for dismantling. The precious metals are extracted through opening burning and the use of corrosive chemicals. With no regard for health or safety, these people expose themselves and the local environment to a wide range of toxic chemicals that have been linked to a startling number of health issues. For example, Guiyu , a town in China, is a common destination for a large proportion of E-waste. Guiyu has the highest levels of carcinogenic dioxins in the environment anywhere in the world and high incidence rates of miscarriages (Walsh 2009).
This issue of E-waste touches upon many of the topics discussed in Environmental Principles and Policies, but specifically, the equity principle and the human rights principle. These two principles highlight how social inequalities are tied to environmental degradation. The E-waste issue can be considered as a socio-economic problem that inevitably leads to environmental degradation.
In theory, “equity means that there should be a minimum level of income and environmental quality below which nobody falls” (Beder 2006). Unfortunately this is not the case in the world, where a vast majority of the population lives in poverty. While burning E-waste and living in squalid conditions seems unthinkable to people living in developed countries, for the individuals of towns such as Guiyu, it is a way of feeding their families. In addition, these people generally lack an education and as a result, they are unaware of the harm that their practises are causing on their own health and the environment. For individuals who live in perpetual poverty, where meeting basic needs such as food and water are the primary concern, environmental protection is quite often the furthest thing from their minds. These people do not have the luxury of making good environmental choices because they must focus all of their efforts towards keeping themselves alive.
The human rights principle also reinforces the main points of the equity principle. Every human being has a right to life, health and general wellbeing as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Beder 2006). Since the most fundamental requirements for life such as food, water and air come directly from the environment it is then reasonable to conclude that in order for these rights to be met a level of environmental health must be maintained as well. The processing of E-waste directly damages the local environment and health of the local people thereby preventing their attainment of the above rights.
The E-waste issue is just one example of the conflict between poverty and environmental protection. All over the world there are similar stories, where the environment is put second to meeting people’s basic needs. In privileged countries lack of environmental action is due to apathy, whereas in developing countries, a large proportion of environmental degradation is linked to poverty. Up until recently, poverty and environmental degradation were viewed as two separate issues. But as the urgency to protect the environment increases, more individuals are beginning to realize that if we are to solve Earth’s environmental issue we will also have to address poverty as well.
References
Beder, S. (2006). Environmental principles and policies: an interdisciplinary introduction. New South Wales: Earthscan
Walsh, B. (2009). E-waste not. Retrieved November 20 2009 from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870485,00.html
Only 20% of the American population recycles its E-waste, but despite this effort, some recycling companies ship the waste to developing nations(Walsh 2009). Once in these countries the E-waste goes to poor people, for dismantling. The precious metals are extracted through opening burning and the use of corrosive chemicals. With no regard for health or safety, these people expose themselves and the local environment to a wide range of toxic chemicals that have been linked to a startling number of health issues. For example, Guiyu , a town in China, is a common destination for a large proportion of E-waste. Guiyu has the highest levels of carcinogenic dioxins in the environment anywhere in the world and high incidence rates of miscarriages (Walsh 2009).
This issue of E-waste touches upon many of the topics discussed in Environmental Principles and Policies, but specifically, the equity principle and the human rights principle. These two principles highlight how social inequalities are tied to environmental degradation. The E-waste issue can be considered as a socio-economic problem that inevitably leads to environmental degradation.
In theory, “equity means that there should be a minimum level of income and environmental quality below which nobody falls” (Beder 2006). Unfortunately this is not the case in the world, where a vast majority of the population lives in poverty. While burning E-waste and living in squalid conditions seems unthinkable to people living in developed countries, for the individuals of towns such as Guiyu, it is a way of feeding their families. In addition, these people generally lack an education and as a result, they are unaware of the harm that their practises are causing on their own health and the environment. For individuals who live in perpetual poverty, where meeting basic needs such as food and water are the primary concern, environmental protection is quite often the furthest thing from their minds. These people do not have the luxury of making good environmental choices because they must focus all of their efforts towards keeping themselves alive.
The human rights principle also reinforces the main points of the equity principle. Every human being has a right to life, health and general wellbeing as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Beder 2006). Since the most fundamental requirements for life such as food, water and air come directly from the environment it is then reasonable to conclude that in order for these rights to be met a level of environmental health must be maintained as well. The processing of E-waste directly damages the local environment and health of the local people thereby preventing their attainment of the above rights.
The E-waste issue is just one example of the conflict between poverty and environmental protection. All over the world there are similar stories, where the environment is put second to meeting people’s basic needs. In privileged countries lack of environmental action is due to apathy, whereas in developing countries, a large proportion of environmental degradation is linked to poverty. Up until recently, poverty and environmental degradation were viewed as two separate issues. But as the urgency to protect the environment increases, more individuals are beginning to realize that if we are to solve Earth’s environmental issue we will also have to address poverty as well.
References
Beder, S. (2006). Environmental principles and policies: an interdisciplinary introduction. New South Wales: Earthscan
Walsh, B. (2009). E-waste not. Retrieved November 20 2009 from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870485,00.html
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Toronto Takes Control: The Banning of Bottled Water
When trying to find a solution for reducing garbage levels and landfill use, one very popular issue comes to mind, bottled water. This fad has become a hot topic for waste management and its concerns because of the undeniable amounts of plastic waste it produces each year. Although this plastic is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over eighty percent of these bottles are simply thrown away (Baskind, 2009). The idea of banning water bottles has been raised by several municipal governments but the city of Toronto has actually voted to ban the sale of these plastic products on all municipal premises by the year 2011. The article “Toronto bans water bottles” published by Canwest News Services explains this decision as well as other measures which the city plans to take in order to reduce their waste production.
By banning the sale of bottled water on premises such as City Hall and golf courses, the government will be implementing regulatory control in the sense that they plan to prohibit this specific action within the city and furthermore, will enforce consequences if these regulations are not met. As when other regulatory controls are put into action, an alternative has been proposed for this situation, including upgrades of already existing fountains to ensure that Torontonians have access to clean and safe drinking water (Canwest News Services, 2008). The government has attempted to approach the ever-increasing issue of plastic water bottles in the past by tactics such as moral suasion. This included stainless steel bottle campaigns and the education and awareness of plastic water bottles’ effects on the environment, but it is evident that the government felt a stronger strategy was needed to address the problem.
Others might argue that this problem could be handled using economic incentives as opposed to regulatory control. Instead of completely banning the sale of bottled water, an additional tax could be added to the cost of the product. The idea behind this tax would be that consumers would gradually become more and more discouraged to purchase bottled water and would begin to participate in more sustainable practises such as carrying a reusable water bottle with them and filling it up at the fountains. In order for this incentive to work successfully, fountains within Toronto would still have to be upgraded, therefore providing an alternative option to paying an increased amount for “packaged” water. Also, it would have to be advertised and made aware that a supplementary tax was being added to the price of the plastic product, or else consumers may be careless and continue to purchase the problematic bottles. Although command and control regulation is most appropriate when monitoring costs are very high, the process of monitoring this additional tax would not necessarily be out of proportion.
Another example of an economic incentive that could be implemented would be a deposit/cash back system. When purchasing bottled water, consumers would pay the normal price for the product as well as a small additional fee. Then, consumers would have the option of returning their emptied bottles to a specified location and would be given back that additional fee for doing so. This technique is currently used for waste products such as beer and liquor bottles as well as milk containers. It would convince buyers to return their bottles, causing more plastic to be recycled than thrown in the garbage. Also, even if consumers weren’t returning their bottles to compensate their deposit, it is likely that someone will use this system to their advantage to make a profit. Unfortunately, monitoring a process such as this might involve high costs because bottled water is such a commonly used product.
When it comes to this specific issue, I believe that it would be more appropriate to use regulatory control than the mentioned economic incentives to approach the problem of plastic water bottles and the ever-increasing levels of waste that are associated with them. I think it is necessary for Toronto to ban the sale of bottled water if the city wants to make a significant reduction in the amount of waste that enters their landfills. Although increasing the price of bottled water would divert some citizens from purchasing the product, many consumers would still not be financially affected by the additional tax. This means that bottled water would still continue to be purchased, and waste levels would not decrease by the desired amount. In the other case, a deposit/cash back system would cause more bottles to be recycled but there is still a very good chance that some would end up in landfills. For either situation, manufactures would still be fabricating the plastic product, which elucidates even more environmental concerns. If bottled water was completely banned in the city, citizens wouldn’t even have the option of purchasing it on premises (drastically decreasing plastic waste levels) and furthermore, the demand for the fabrication of plastic water bottles would decrease as well. In other situations, economic incentives have proven to be a less harsh and more appropriate approach, but as history has shown in the past, sometimes government command and control is necessary to avoid serious environmental harm.
References
Baskind, C. (2009) Five Reasons Not to Drink Bottled Water. 11 May 2008. http://lighterfootstep.com/2008/05/five-reasons-not-to-drink-bottled-water/. Accessed 15 November 2009.
Canwest News Services (2008) Toronto bans water bottles. 3 December 2008. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1027243. Accessed on 15 November 2009.
By banning the sale of bottled water on premises such as City Hall and golf courses, the government will be implementing regulatory control in the sense that they plan to prohibit this specific action within the city and furthermore, will enforce consequences if these regulations are not met. As when other regulatory controls are put into action, an alternative has been proposed for this situation, including upgrades of already existing fountains to ensure that Torontonians have access to clean and safe drinking water (Canwest News Services, 2008). The government has attempted to approach the ever-increasing issue of plastic water bottles in the past by tactics such as moral suasion. This included stainless steel bottle campaigns and the education and awareness of plastic water bottles’ effects on the environment, but it is evident that the government felt a stronger strategy was needed to address the problem.
Others might argue that this problem could be handled using economic incentives as opposed to regulatory control. Instead of completely banning the sale of bottled water, an additional tax could be added to the cost of the product. The idea behind this tax would be that consumers would gradually become more and more discouraged to purchase bottled water and would begin to participate in more sustainable practises such as carrying a reusable water bottle with them and filling it up at the fountains. In order for this incentive to work successfully, fountains within Toronto would still have to be upgraded, therefore providing an alternative option to paying an increased amount for “packaged” water. Also, it would have to be advertised and made aware that a supplementary tax was being added to the price of the plastic product, or else consumers may be careless and continue to purchase the problematic bottles. Although command and control regulation is most appropriate when monitoring costs are very high, the process of monitoring this additional tax would not necessarily be out of proportion.
Another example of an economic incentive that could be implemented would be a deposit/cash back system. When purchasing bottled water, consumers would pay the normal price for the product as well as a small additional fee. Then, consumers would have the option of returning their emptied bottles to a specified location and would be given back that additional fee for doing so. This technique is currently used for waste products such as beer and liquor bottles as well as milk containers. It would convince buyers to return their bottles, causing more plastic to be recycled than thrown in the garbage. Also, even if consumers weren’t returning their bottles to compensate their deposit, it is likely that someone will use this system to their advantage to make a profit. Unfortunately, monitoring a process such as this might involve high costs because bottled water is such a commonly used product.
When it comes to this specific issue, I believe that it would be more appropriate to use regulatory control than the mentioned economic incentives to approach the problem of plastic water bottles and the ever-increasing levels of waste that are associated with them. I think it is necessary for Toronto to ban the sale of bottled water if the city wants to make a significant reduction in the amount of waste that enters their landfills. Although increasing the price of bottled water would divert some citizens from purchasing the product, many consumers would still not be financially affected by the additional tax. This means that bottled water would still continue to be purchased, and waste levels would not decrease by the desired amount. In the other case, a deposit/cash back system would cause more bottles to be recycled but there is still a very good chance that some would end up in landfills. For either situation, manufactures would still be fabricating the plastic product, which elucidates even more environmental concerns. If bottled water was completely banned in the city, citizens wouldn’t even have the option of purchasing it on premises (drastically decreasing plastic waste levels) and furthermore, the demand for the fabrication of plastic water bottles would decrease as well. In other situations, economic incentives have proven to be a less harsh and more appropriate approach, but as history has shown in the past, sometimes government command and control is necessary to avoid serious environmental harm.
References
Baskind, C. (2009) Five Reasons Not to Drink Bottled Water. 11 May 2008. http://lighterfootstep.com/2008/05/five-reasons-not-to-drink-bottled-water/. Accessed 15 November 2009.
Canwest News Services (2008) Toronto bans water bottles. 3 December 2008. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1027243. Accessed on 15 November 2009.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Ban the Bottle
What does the city of Toronto have in common with the small Australian village of Gundaboon? Both municipalities are currently pursuing new laws that would ban the sale of bottled water. As reported in a recent news article, Toronto City Council recently voted to ban the sale of plastic-bottled water on city premises. If the regulation is fully implemented, the Ontario capital would be the first large city in the world to adopt such a ban. Meanwhile, Gundaboon in New South Wales, Australia has implemented a similar law that bans such sales throughout the entire town. This is part of a growing trend to “ban the bottle” by municipalities and other organizations, such as universities. The University of Winnipeg also recently implemented a ban.
Proponents of the bans cite environmental sustainability as the main reason for the push. While the single-use bottles are recyclable, many do not make it into blue bins, and ultimately pile up in landfills. As many people are now aware, the plastic in these bulky bottles then takes many decades to degrade. Thus, we are seeing implementation of regulatory control in order to address this environmental problem. However, economic incentives could instead be used in attempting to reduce the amount of plastic going to landfills. These incentives could come in the form of a deposit return system. A specific monetary deposit could be required at the time of purchase, then returned to the consumer if and when they bring bottles to a recycling facility. These incentives could help to address the problem in two ways. First, consumers stand to lose money if they do not return their used bottles, and thus would be more likely to ensure they are recycled. Second, the addition of a deposit seemingly increases the retail price of bottled water. So consumers may choose not to buy bottled water, thus also reducing accumulation.
However, such a system of incentives presents challenges. It would be very expensive to implement and administer, both to the retailers and governments. Retailers would have to make changes to their transaction systems, and would bear the responsibility of forwarding the collected deposits to the governments. Governments would have to hire new staff for administration and for handling returns. The costs to the former would be passed on to the consumer, while the costs to the latter would ultimately fall on the tax-payer. In each case, this is regardless of if they buy bottled water or not. Costs to the bottling companies would be minimal. They would continue to obtain the plastic for their bottles from recycled material, while continuing to sell their product to retailers, all without involvement in the deposit return system.
In the case of bottled water and reducing the environmental impact it causes, I prefer a system of regulatory control over economic incentives. The incentive system carries many complexities and complications between the 4 groups involved: the producers, the retailers, the consumers and the government. While all but the government contribute to the landfill problem, all but the producers incur the costs of the proposed solution. Yet the producers continue to profit from sales, and it could also be argued that they contribute the most to the landfill problem by bottling the water to begin with. Therefore it does not seem to be a fairly balanced solution. Regulatory control carries less complications. A straightforward ban in a municipality directly reduces plastic accumulation in that municipality’s landfills. It also does more to improve environmental sustainability. The production and sale of bottled water creates negative impacts beyond just plastic waste. Much energy is spent in production and transportation of the bottles to market, with even more being spent during recycling. This expenditure creates pollutant emissions. A ban on sales curbs all these negative impacts. While this does greatly affect the producers, it was they who originally created the environmental problem. Water is readily available to people in almost all parts of Canada, and the developed world. The impact caused by these companies is not necessary, and their profits should not trump the environment.
Water bottling companies profit from a resource of public domain that should not facilitate private profit, all while causing negative environmental impacts. This practice, in itself should not be allowed. A ban on bottled water sales is a step in the right direction.
Reference:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1027243
Proponents of the bans cite environmental sustainability as the main reason for the push. While the single-use bottles are recyclable, many do not make it into blue bins, and ultimately pile up in landfills. As many people are now aware, the plastic in these bulky bottles then takes many decades to degrade. Thus, we are seeing implementation of regulatory control in order to address this environmental problem. However, economic incentives could instead be used in attempting to reduce the amount of plastic going to landfills. These incentives could come in the form of a deposit return system. A specific monetary deposit could be required at the time of purchase, then returned to the consumer if and when they bring bottles to a recycling facility. These incentives could help to address the problem in two ways. First, consumers stand to lose money if they do not return their used bottles, and thus would be more likely to ensure they are recycled. Second, the addition of a deposit seemingly increases the retail price of bottled water. So consumers may choose not to buy bottled water, thus also reducing accumulation.
However, such a system of incentives presents challenges. It would be very expensive to implement and administer, both to the retailers and governments. Retailers would have to make changes to their transaction systems, and would bear the responsibility of forwarding the collected deposits to the governments. Governments would have to hire new staff for administration and for handling returns. The costs to the former would be passed on to the consumer, while the costs to the latter would ultimately fall on the tax-payer. In each case, this is regardless of if they buy bottled water or not. Costs to the bottling companies would be minimal. They would continue to obtain the plastic for their bottles from recycled material, while continuing to sell their product to retailers, all without involvement in the deposit return system.
In the case of bottled water and reducing the environmental impact it causes, I prefer a system of regulatory control over economic incentives. The incentive system carries many complexities and complications between the 4 groups involved: the producers, the retailers, the consumers and the government. While all but the government contribute to the landfill problem, all but the producers incur the costs of the proposed solution. Yet the producers continue to profit from sales, and it could also be argued that they contribute the most to the landfill problem by bottling the water to begin with. Therefore it does not seem to be a fairly balanced solution. Regulatory control carries less complications. A straightforward ban in a municipality directly reduces plastic accumulation in that municipality’s landfills. It also does more to improve environmental sustainability. The production and sale of bottled water creates negative impacts beyond just plastic waste. Much energy is spent in production and transportation of the bottles to market, with even more being spent during recycling. This expenditure creates pollutant emissions. A ban on sales curbs all these negative impacts. While this does greatly affect the producers, it was they who originally created the environmental problem. Water is readily available to people in almost all parts of Canada, and the developed world. The impact caused by these companies is not necessary, and their profits should not trump the environment.
Water bottling companies profit from a resource of public domain that should not facilitate private profit, all while causing negative environmental impacts. This practice, in itself should not be allowed. A ban on bottled water sales is a step in the right direction.
Reference:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1027243
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
