1) Gatto and De Leo contend that the misleading aspect of pricing the value of nature’s services is vested on the falls implications that only economic value matter. Instead, valuing and thus pricing environmental goods and services should incorporate technical, environmental and social criterion as well. As opposed to what Constanza et al’s claims, the estimates of biodiversity and ecology would only be erroneous in terms of basing decisions, policies and projects on a single scale.   


 


In addition, putting price on environment’s services could only be trivial because unlike economy, environment has no clear, easily understandable indicators. For the economy, we could consider gross national products, unemployment rate, governmental revenues, import and export and several others. And research and development-wise, there are no universally agreed upon approach or valuation techniques to measure such. For some, they could utilize costs- benefits while others are tended to use multicriteria analysis. Nonetheless, environment services have inherent economic value. For example, the foods people produce and consume are cultivated from naturally healthy soils that somehow add value to the crops. The things our taxes go into are supplied by the environment – free of charge; hence the market valuation of the latter is critical yet the benefits are hidden and so misleading.


 


In light of the critical environmental dilemmas, there are intangible non-monetary values of ecosystems that must be maintained. These are the air quality enhancement; soils devoted for food, wood and paper production; food and water for wildlife; pest control; ambient temperature enhancement; filtering or recharging of ground water; recreation and tourism; noise barriers and separation; natural fires; grazing intended for domesticated animals; dampening flood peaks; erosion control; renewable energy; carbon, energy and water storage; pollination; reduction of natural hazards; and evaportranspiration.


           


The value of ecosystem has largely been ignored until recently. Many ecological economists claimed that threats to the natural systems are increasing and thus the necessity to protect and preserve such. Jim Morrison’s view echoed much of these claims. To wit, ecosystem and biodiversity’s services are essential to modern civilizations especially in those areas that technology or money could not easily facilitate.


 


These are the natural purification of water and hence air, the mitigation of natural disasters, the generation and preservation of healthy soils and renewal of their fertility, the natural detoxification and decomposition of wastes; the natural fertilization of crops and vegetation, the cycling and movement of nutrients, the maintenance of biodiversity, that partial stabilization of climate, the moderation of weather extremes and its eventual impacts and the provision for natural habitat for wildlife. Apart from this, such natural services provide local and national governments of the financial and social benefits of saving from various facilities and plants and providing local residents with livelihood.        


2) The interplay between the global warming and the destruction of the natural habitats will be the two main reasons of the decline in birds’ population. On the one hand, climate change would be the major culprit for bird migration and nesting because of, on the other, climate change could probably alter the natural bird habitats; exacerbating the population to eventual extinction. Loss of habitat, in addition, is due to deforestation, putting at risk a significant amount of most threatened bird diversity.


 


Aside, how humanity treats the natural environment also contributes to this decline. For one, modernization led to fragmenting forests, tundras and subtropical areas with infrastructures that otherwise distort their usual habitation. What’s worse, these infrastructures emit harmful chemicals that may as well threaten the bird population. Intensified by the poorly regulated laws, illegal hunting, capturing and killing of millions of birds worldwide are now rampant than ever. Coupled with pet trading, people’s growing fondness on exotic foods is also to account to the growing decline.


 


Global warming in particular will cause mass extinction in birds especially for certain bird groups. For example, migratory birds could no longer pursue their function to migrate and hence fail to contribute to the fundamental elements of their ecosystems and may force them to migrate to unprotected zones. In addition, there are invasive species that may threaten the life of these birds once they migrate to unfamiliar habitats and might experience shortage of food and water in such areas. What’s more, they would find difficulties in reproducing in adverse conditions. Migrating to rather unpredictable environments would subject them to predation same with their produced and thus lower breeding success.    


 


Without people realizing the widespread consequences of the distinction of bird species, it’s hard to imagine the extent of the benefits of such. Birds play high intrinsic roles in our ecosystem. Birds are to account for the basic fruit and seed production and eventual consumption. They act as herbivores, predator or prey and facilitate plant dispersal most significantly in farmlands where they eat insects, weeds, slugs and rodents.


 


As such, birds are the main source of additional food on our table and improved human health. Like for example, chickens and other domesticated birds that produce meat and egg as the main source of protein while also protecting crop for nutritional food consumption. This is central to the idea that the government finances could be devoted to areas in most needs especially for children and elderly health; and also on exporting instead of importing that could boost the GNP.  


 


Birds could as well generate products with commercial value such as bedding and clothing. Showcasing their natural beauties at zoos and other man-made animal habitats builds additional tourism and recreation for many governments and thus incurring more taxes specifically from foreign tourists.  


3) Environmental racism is the, whether intentional or unintentional, racial discrimination for minority communities or the exclusion of members of such group regarding representations before environmental bodies that intends for the enforcement of environmental rules, laws and regulations. As a social injustice, environmental racism is demonstrated by the disproportionate large number of health and environmental risks vested on people of various race within their respective communities.


 


Prevalent among these groups are the toxic landfills, industrial dumping, uranium-mining, waste incinerator and other environmentally-hazardous acts. Such conditions are coupled with racial inequities including poverty, deteriorating housing, inadequate education facilities, acute unemployment, economic disinvestment and poor access to medical services.


 


Exacerbated by the lack of environmental ethics that concerns human welfare, environmental racism is a process of capturing or creating racial disadvantages based on prejudicial belief and behaviour, personal and institutional power and privileges over others. As such, environmental racism is brought by the disparities in different social and ethical actions, decisions and policies.


 


Examples of this are the intentional or unintentional exposure to environmental detriments; uneven distribution of impacts of various environmental processes; unbalanced distribution of policies; deliberate targeting of deleterious facilities in specific communities; environmental blackmails resulting to working in places with poor environmental law compliance with/or performing health-threatening jobs; segregation of ethnic minority workers in dangerous jobs; inequality or poor access in environmental amenities and inequality in environmental services.


 


Ethnic minorities and indigenous groups if such condition will prevail impact much of their health due to disproportionate distribution of environmental risks and environmental services particularly for the young; putting their survival in jeopardy. Indigenous and the minority would be particularly vulnerable because of coerced exposure to unbeneficial soils, water and air and hence loss of productivity and livelihood.


 


People of color and their lack of control and power over environmental injustice would likely to experience worse situations of unbalanced and irresponsible utilization of land and renewable resources; poor protection from nuclear testing, extraction, and production and corollary activities; lack of right to participate in decision-making processes ranging from needs assessment to implementation and evaluation; lack of protection from safe and healthy workplaces; worse the lack or further decline in individual and communal consumption.


 


Broadly, the impact of environment issues on disadvantaged groups is the lack of opportunity to represent themselves regarding environmental dilemmas and its consequences and the need to voice their needs as a basic right.


4) Tradable pollution rights and pollution emission standards are the tow most common environmental policy tool intended for controlling pollution as it allows organizations, firms and companies the right to emit specific pollutants. Originally intended for cutting costs while enabling economic development in otherwise highly-polluted areas, tradable pollution rights regulate a certain firm to the amount of emissions either through auction or trading with other companies or firms; allowing a much greater flexibility.


 


Assimilative capacity is the main as to why tradable pollution rights could be substituted to emission standards. The very premise of these two centers on the right to take tolerable amount of pollution and ensure effective allocation of such capacity to companies which needs to use it and thus facilitating collective tolerance in the environment.


 


However, tradable pollution rights seem problematic which draw reasons both from pros and cons. Albeit the lesser costs it can incur from and for the firms, the environment has but minimal benefits from tradable pollution rights based on its inherent difference from emissions standards which enable various firms to inflate allowable emissions baseline.


 


In addition, this scheme allows worst polluter-firms to have high entitlements since allowable emissions are based on their previous emissions whereas in the emissions trading they are not allowed to exceed cap and thus stay in that level. To compensate such, they are permitted to buy credits from less pollutant firms and so they can be used interchangeably whenever the companies felt the need to do so.


 


Unlike the real and potential benefit of tradable pollution rights that focuses on theory and financial instead of environmental, emissions trading is more environmental; a reason which may be practical for firms. To wit, emissions trading is particular to enforcement whereby the inexistence of effective enforcement within firm’s facilities would also mean no value for their licenses.


 


 This is done in two ways: measuring of facilities by regulators and eventual imposing of fines when discovered that they lack licenses or verification of polluting facilities which have licenses equal or greater than their emissions by government or third party agency.


 


What makes tradable pollution rights even more acceptable than emissions standards is its conflict-laden pricing structure. Prices are rather unstable and therefore unpredictable and the consequent tendency to pass the quotas which may result to large transfers across and between frontiers. Both however encompass two main attribute of environmental policy. These are price-based and rights-based. The former deals with the utilization of charge, fine, sanctions and subsidies to encourage them to reduce discharges and the latter focuses on creating rights to use environmental resources.  


5) Whenever we are thinking about war, the idea that usually pops in our head is its effect in the life of people in terms of tragic loss of human life, mainly the soldiers and innocent civilians. We are not that familiar and knowledgeable about its negative impact to the environment. The devastating effects of war on the environment have been one of the most important issues as well as serious concerns of many scientists as well as environmentalist for over fifteen years.


 


In 1983, during the Iraq-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein had blown up well as well as dumped oil in the Persian Gulf. In addition to that, the Persian Gulf War that had happened in 1991 had brought a serious damage to the environment in major parts of the Middle East. On January 21 of the same year, few days after the launching of the Coalition Forces of their air campaign against Iraq, the forces of military of Iraq in Kuwait had opened their valves at the Sea Island oil terminal that is near in the Kuwait City and eventually released a large amount of crude oil in the Gulf.


 


The two primary outcome of war are environmental degradation and the loss of environmental security. Environmental degradation is known as the mass depletion of environmental resources that includes air, water and soil or the deterioration of environment in general threatening greatly threatening the human health. Like that of the Persian Gulf, there had been the destruction of natural habitats, lost of biodiversity and depletion of natural resources.


 


Moreover, war had effectively degraded established infrastructures and services that are vital on local environment and public health. In Afghanistan, for example, the destruction of water infrastructures and supply systems due to bombing penetrated pipes caused bacterial contamination and thus the collective decline in the availability of safe drinking water.


 


Environmental security; and the loss of such, is central on the relationship between security issues and the natural environment which is evident in three areas as the prevention of or the efforts to repair military damages to the environment; the prevention of or responding to environmentally-motivated conflicts and the protection of the natural resources due to its inherent moral value.         


 


Modern warfare caused severe damages to biodiversities such as extreme deforestation and habitat devastation resulting to diminished erosion control, decreased in food production and poor water quality. Wars, further, left no healthy spaces to consume and surfacing of lack of security and education; emergence of communicable diseases and easily spread of epidemics and famine.


 


Gulf War further had enduring effects due to depleted uranium weapons which continued to grow and thus continued to threaten the life of residents. As a military tactic, environmental destruction by means of biological and chemical agents had tremendous effects on the health of the people and the environment including defoliation of tropical forests, destruction of crops, birth defects and skin and lung cancer. 


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top