Green Economics (2):
Continuing the theme from my last article on ‘Green Economics’ (click labels for full display of subject matter written previously) I would like to conclude this topic by addressing what can be said about the causes of the environmental problems I mentioned in the previous journal.
Environmental Science, Accounting, Law and Management Sciences will, in the future, converge more closely in how a more common unified approach be applied in understanding the implications associated with Green Economics. As mentioned, strict audit requirements now exist on companies in terms of effluence, water and atmospheric pollution and how companies should be observing the rules of the international community. It is likely that the European court in conjunction with national governments will, as a result of international pressures, make rulings in the future as to how the environment is to be protected.
Environmental science is a subject I have a close interest in. You will notice, I am sure, that as this website develops in meeting with the vision and objectives of the author that, many other areas of environmental science be incorporated within future writings. It is such an important issue now, overlapping into other areas of professional competence, that any website of potential judicious standing must address the concerns and matters that are appearing all too readily.
Ladies and gentlemen, Accounting is a "calling". It therefore remains a duty on us in providing political and economic inertia in seeking a better understanding, and promoting it publicly, before the root causes can be addressed with effective resolution. Accountancy and other related professions must raise the spectre to such a standard that it will make a difference in how future standards and policies are set. Nevertheless, the responsibility is as much yours as it is mine.
On the face of it there appears to be three common underlying features in regards to taking account of environmental costs:
- Ignorance
It is often not for many years that the nature and causes of environmental damage are realised. Take the case of aerosols and the damaging effects of CFCs many aerosols previously contained. It was not until the late 1980s that scientists connected their use to ozone depletion.
The environment, many argue, has been irrevocably damaged by such pressurised use of aerosols. The 'GAIA' Theory as advocated by Professor James Lovelock during the 60s, for instance, was too easily overlooked and rebuked.
- The polluters do not pay
Historically, the costs of pollution are rarely paid by the polluters in terms of those polluting the most. Economists call such costs ‘external costs’.
Traditionally, polluters paid scant and negligible lip-service to the damage that industrial pollution has caused, despite the introduction of protocols and voluntary governmental codes. 'Carbon-trading-emissions' policies have certainly been a step in the right direction, which places an onus on charging those most culpable of environmental damage.
However, the writer suggests that standardised agreements, enforced if necessary, is the only consistent approach that will work. Those countries that have rejected out of hand Kyoto, for instance, is totally unacceptable when small nations like the UK are making strident efforts in combating the problem. Small gains made here, in global terms, are easily lost when other larger countries and nations have no inclination of reducing their carbon emissions. Without a global consensual approach, the environment is certainly doomed for economic and environmental catastrophe.
Scotland, the small nation she is, will certainly contribute in a viable and constructive manner. The writer is pleased that Scotland’s First Minister (Alex Salmond) has entered into agreement with the Green’s in Scotland which signals a real desire in addressing the significance and pertinence of environmental issues. But, this is only a starting point and never should be read as an end unto itself. A government in Scotland that will consider: “Issue by Issue” before laws in Scotland are enacted. Environmental policy will certainly be an area in which a whole stream of issues will arise.
- Present gains for future costs
The environmental costs of industrialisation often build up slowly and do not become critical for many years. The benefits of industrialisation, however, are more immediate. Thus governments, consumers and industry are frequently prepared to continue with various practices and leave future generations to worry about their environmental consequences.
The problem has therefore become a reflection of the importance that people attach to the present moment, relative to the future. Such attitudes require radically changing.
Environmentalists recognise this issue as being extremely problematic. Activists have attempted through the political process in reducing people’s ignorance. Pressure groups such as ‘Friends of the Earth’ and ‘Greenpeace’ engage some of the best scientists this country has to offer and yet, despite historical assurances from the government, it is only really of late that the Labour Party in Britain has decided to act in the face of mounting scientific evidence. Blair’s campaign of harmonising European opinion on global warming, for instance, should be applauded as the need to conserve energy supplies and by reducing carbon emissions is starting to hit the fast-lane of government thinking. However, the process requires continued momentum into the future. Environmental degradation of the Earth is a very serious issue with many issues of morality and economic dependence attached. The issue is for you, as it is for me.
