1.) SHOULD PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES BE COMPELLED TO RECYCLE WASTE ENERGY AND MATERIALS BEYOND THE LEVEL THAT THEY FIND PRIVATELY PROFITABLE?
With the continuous growth in the world wide population and with the rapidly increasing numbers of industries, waste also becomes a global problem. As the world becomes populated so as the garbage that these people and these industries throw and generated. With the complexity of the technologically based society today in combination with the growth in population, generation of large amount of waste has led enormous problem in the society.
In addition, with the continuous manufacturing of these industries and consumption, wastes would be unavoidable since it would be the by-product of the activities of the people and industries.
Currently, as the people and the government increasingly become aware of the environmental destruction and health issues, waste problems receive more attention today. Also, with the businesses and organization being aware of these effects and with the additional costs they have to spend for regulating their activities, various programs and means are generated to prevent or minimize these effects on their operations and on the environment. Moreover, wastes produced in the operations or manufacturing can mean as inefficiency and wrongly use of resources that could be a danger to the economy or environment. Envirowise estimate that waste typically costs companies 4.5% of their turnover.
There have been many programs and regulation in which the government implemented to minimize or prevent the considerable implication of pollution and disposing of garbage in the industries and with the households. One of these different programs is recycling.
I (2006) defined recycling as the process of waste management in which waste materials are transformed into usable resources again. Other options of waste management include eliminating or reducing the generation of waste or reusing an item prior to recycling.
Treatment and disposal is preferable in recycling since conservation of energy and reduction of waste can be attained. It has been generally noted that manufacturing new products from recycled materials requires much less energy than when manufacturing new products from virgin raw materials. In addition, recycling of used materials and products helps conserved natural resources and prevent pollution. It is also noted that it is usually much cleaner to manufacture new products using recycled materials than manufacturing products from new resources. Moreover, recycling accounts economic benefits since there would be creation of jobs in areas where processing facilities are located. Furthermore, it can reduce the costs of disposing these waste materials in landfills or incinerators.
(2006) also defined recycling as a process that undergoes five stages in a closed loop process. It begins with the purchase of recycled products or products that are made of or packaged in materials that can be recycled. The products are then collected for recycling, prepared and shipped to market, where they are reprocessed into new products or materials.
of The Ohio State University identified that 95 percent less energy is consumed of recycling aluminum that producing aluminum from bauxite ore. In addition, paper making consume 64 percent less energy when using recycled stock than using wood pulp. Making containers also conserve up to 60 percent of energy when using recycled plastic than making the same product from virgin material. Recycled ferrous scrap consumes 75 percent less energy than new ore. Generally, it can be concluded that every material recycled uses less energy than using virgin materials.
Not only that energy can be conserved with recycling but also resources can be conserved. According to Heimlich, “seventy percent of all metal that has been used are only discarded after use. Use of waste oil saves the fund resources of crude oil. Over 50 percent of household waste is paper. Even though trees are renewable resources, the rapid increase in paper use in our information society, coupled with the demand for pulp wood worldwide, has created a situation in which pulp trees are used more quickly than they are being replaced. The plastic manufacturing industry is a major user of petrochemicals (oil). A common claim is that recycling conserves natural resources – in many cases, recycling saves resources as well.” ( not known)
In UK, approximately 434 million tones of waste are produced every year (). Waste Online describe this enormous amount of garbage as a rate of rubbish generation that would fill the Albert Hall in London in less than 2 hours.
It has been reported that every year UK household throws away 30 million tonnes of waste which would if stretch from London to Sydney, Australia if fitted to a double-decker buses lined up () On average, each person in UK, throws away about 500 kg in rubbish every year.
There are different kinds of waste that is commonly thrown away by the households which Waste Online has mentioned. These include glass, plastics, oil, packaging, and revolting rubbish.
On average every family in the UK consumes around 330 glass bottles and jars a year (). It is not known how long glass takes to break down but it is so long that glass made in the Middle East over 3000 years ago can still be found today. According to the site, recycling two bottles saves enough energy to boil water for five cups of tea.
In the case of plastic wastes, it is estimated approximately 17.5 billion plastic bags are given away by supermarkets every year (). This is equivalent to over 290 bags for every person in the UK.
According to the Scottish Oil Campaign, 1 liter of oil can pollute 1 million liters of fresh drinking water (). Waste oil from nearly 3 million car oil changes in Britain is not collected. If collected properly, according to the Scottish Oil Campaign, this could meet the annual energy needs of 1.5 million people ().
According to , UK households produced the equivalent weight of 245 jumbo jets per week in packaging waste in 2001. It is assumed that each person produces four times as much packaging waste as their luggage allowance on a jumbo jet each year.
Revolting rubbish includes babies’ nappies which make up of about 2% of the average household rubbish ().
In 2004, reported that the UK produced about 335 million tonnes of waste. The chart below presented the estimated portion of each sector in the production of waste. “This includes nearly 100 million tonnes of minerals waste from mining and quarrying, which is not subject to control under the EU Waste Framework Directive, and 220 million tonnes of controlled wastes from households, commerce and industry including construction and demolition wastes. Household wastes represent about 9 per cent of total raisings.” ()
Construction and demolition wastes include excavated soil and miscellaneous materials as well as hard materials, such as brick, concrete and road planning.
Waste from the agriculture sector represents small per cent of total arising of waste produced which excludes manure or straw.
Estimates for end of life vehicles have been included in the commercial and household sectors and figures on end of life ships have been included in the commercial sector.
Source:
Private individual and businesses must be obliged to recycle waste energy and resources since with the growth of population pollution also increases which maybe harmful to health and to the environment. These pollution are generally contributed by the private individuals and businesses.
In the business sector, commitment to recycling and pollution control can help business reduced its costs. Meeting regulatory obligations may reduce their fees and penalties with the improper wastes disposal. In addition, company’s public image and employee morale would be improved. There would also be less inventory and waste storage expenses that the company would incurred permitting economic savings. Moreover, there would be fewer burdens with transportation costs and reporting and insurance liability.
Less amount of waste production in business by recycling waste and raw materials and by saving resources would be environmentally good and also economically good for the business since it can save money. It is noted that inefficient use of packaging, raw materials and utilities could cost thousands of pounds a year in lost revenue ().
In summary, recycling can benefit business as well as the environment and the economy. According to the (2006), recycling has various benefits. As according to the movement, recycling can conserve resources. It has been noted that a ton of paper recycled a year can save 17 trees and 7000 gallons of water. Also, there is a total savings of 2,500 pounds of iron ore, 1,400 pounds of coal and 120 pounds of limestone in every ton of steel recycled. In addition, an equivalent of 10 gallons of oil is saved in every one ton of glass recycled (, 2006).
In addition, recycling can reduce pollution. As according to U.S. EPA, landfills accounts for 37% of methane gas output which is the second largest source of greenhouse effect in the atmosphere ( 2006). Having private individuals and businesses recycle wastes, these can be use again instead of going to landfills which cause to production if methane gas.
Moreover, with recycling energy saving is possible since using recycled materials require less energy than using new or virgin raw materials. Evidently, it was stated that “recycling one aluminum can save enough energy to run a TV for 3 hours. Recycling of one glass container can also save enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for 4 hours. Also, recycling of a pound of steel can save enough energy to light a 60-watt bulb for 24 hours. Further, recycling a ton of paper can save up to 4,200 kilowatt hours of energy.” ( 2006)
Furthermore, recycling has also economic benefits. Jobs are created with recycling particularly where recycling is done. Waste reduction also creates efficiency in business operations. There is also a possibility of innovating products. Waste reduction and recycling are cost effective for the government.
Generally, recycling is means cost saving since energy and resources are saved. Also, waste management costs can also be reduced. Significantly, businesses can benefit with recycling. For example, at manufacturing facility, 93% of packaging waste generated is now re-used or recycled, saving the computer giant .45 million in disposal costs ( 2006).
Mostly, businesses value resource efficiency since it would reduce their costs. Today, resource efficiency is not only an environmental initiative but rather an important business process that could potentially save organization a lot of money.
Typically, waste can cost business up to 4% of the total turnover ( 2006) which could be reduced when proper disposal management and reduction of waste by recycling the recyclable materials.
Take for example the Oxford Group which has implemented a number of initiatives around paper use, yielding cost savings of £40,000/year ( 2006). In addition, Ltd achieved net savings of £33,050 in the first year and £106,700/year thereafter, by installing simple, low-cost water savings devices (, 2006).
2) CONTRAST THE BENEFITS OF A TAX ON POLLUTION WITH THE BENEFITS OF LEGALLY REGULATING IT.
It is a fact that pollution can cost a lot of money and effort and even cause dangers to the people. Environmental regulations and imposing taxes are important to regulate and control these effects of pollution. Since 1920s economists have endorsed pollution emissions taxes as one efficient means of constraining pollution to acceptable levels and better reflecting environmental costs in market transactions ( 1920).
In contrary to legally regulating pollution, pollution tax systems provide firms with considerable flexibility in meeting pollution targets. Whereas, regulatory approaches involving tradable permits also provide firms with the latitude to devise a least-cost response to pollution objectives.
However, legally regulating pollution approaches still gives the rights of existing polluters to still pollute and eventually can pose a barrier to entry on new industrial facilities. Moreover, pollution taxes have the property of fairness in which polluters should pay which is not present with legally regulating pollution. Advantages can be seen with imposing taxes on “bads” such as pollution or “sins” such as alcohol, tobacco, or topless night clubs.
Taxes implemented on pollution on industrial resources would possibly affect the industries violating pollution regulations and would considerably give them initiative to reduce their wastes and regulated emissions. Having a tax burden associated with pollution and hazardous emissions could contribute to the reduction of air and water pollution.
In model simulations conducted in the early 1990s, the Center for Energy Studies, University of Texas at Austin, found that if emissions taxes were set to the “social cost of pollution” values that had been adopted by environmental and utility regulators Emissions taxes, at the levels studied, would succeed in reducing air emissions.
Implementing pollution tax gives industries disadvantage since companies not regulating their pollution emission would have to incur additional expenses. Tax on pollution, including carbon dioxide, help cut greenhouse gas emissions and curb global warming.
With the increase costs of pollution would discourage polluter industries from polluting and would provide a cleaner environment in air and water. Tax on pollution is intended to be imposed to cover costs of unintended environmental and health damage to the people not directly associated with the industries and of the environment.
(1920), an economist stated that “externalities create market failures in which unfettered economic activity makes society worse off rather than better off. The situation can be corrected by charging a tax per unit equal to the cost borne by society as a whole per unit. If an additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions causes 0 in crop losses, increased air conditioning loads, hurricane disasters, etc. for the planet’s citizens, then a green tax of 0 per ton of emissions should be charged. The imposition of such a tax could be rendered revenue-neutral by repealing income taxes in the lowest brackets to balance the new revenue from the carbon tax.”
“When pollution of air, water, and soil is essentially free, products that pollute heavily will be over-consumed relative to cleaner products. When poor labor practices are essentially free, products that employ them will be over-consumed relative to those produced fairly. Ignoring externalities leads to systemic problems, environmental contamination, unsafe neighborhoods, urban sprawl, degradation of forests, fisheries, and farmland, because each individual has pursued the cheapest prices rather than minimizing the actual cost to society.” (1920)
Under an emissions tax system, pollution is automatically monitored by a metering system and a tax bill is then sent to each firm according to the amount it pollutes. There is no provision as to how much the firm can pollute nor what type of technology it should use. If the EPA decides to reduce pollution, it simply raises the pollution tax.
Under this system the enforcement is immediate and much less costly. The EPA generates money instead of spending it. The funds can be used to support the EPA’s activities or be put towards cleaning up the environment. A tax system is also much more efficient in that it can reduce a given amount of pollution at lower costs to society. This is because it gives firms the flexibility in deciding how they are going to reduce their emissions, if at all. With this flexibility, the firms who find it easiest to clean up their emissions will do so first.
However, (1997) argued that the establishment of pollution taxes would only make it less expensive for a polluter to adopt alternative processes or invest in additional equipment to curtail releases to the environment than it would be for him to continue as before. It is argued that such taxes would only supplement, and not replace, standards on maximum permissible emissions.
(1997) recommended that taxes should only be imposed when the following conditions are found to prevail generally:
· for competitive or other reasons, cost-minimizing behavior tends to exist in the company or industry;
· the cost of abatement is expected to be significant, both in relation to revenue from sales and in absolute terms; and
· the quantity of the pollutant released to the environment can be determined with reasonable accuracy, either by direct monitoring of every source, statistical sampling of a small fraction of many similar sources produced by a few manufactures, or by indirect means. The cost of monitoring should be small in relation to the tax revenue expected in the absence of abatement.
In contrary to the benefits of a pollution tax, there are at least three situations where direct controls are better:
However, it has been realized that environmental regulations are not so distinctfrom economic instruments as is commonly asserted by proponents of environmental economics. For example, regulations are enforced by fines, which operate as a form of tax if pollution rises above the threshold prescribed. Another example is that pollution must be monitored and laws enforced, whether under a pollution tax regime or a regulatory regime.
It is also been argued that regulations implement the same or uniform limitations of emissions in which creates unfair treatment to industries since firms has different costs for emissions reduction.
EPA is a government agency in which attempts to reduce pollution by setting legislation and rules. Majority of their environmental policy is dealt with direct control. In order to be effective in the implementation of direct controls, the government agency (EPA) must specify the property rights over the pollution, monitor the firms’ actions, detect violations, and then prosecute the violator in court.
For example, the EPA mandates that the oil refinery must use certain scrubbers. If the firm does not use the scrubbers, the EPA must detect this and take the firm to court. If the EPA is successful, the firm is fined. The process is very long and expensive ( ).
Implementation of environmental regulations needs the commitment of the government in adopting standards to protect environmental quality and public health. Governments bear responsibility for assembling the information, developing the processes and providing the public access needed to establish appropriate standards and to make the tools work effectively. There are various tools that the government can implement which includes regulatory requirement, incentives and guidance.
An effective environmental regulation is integral to successful markets, an essential ingredient of a vibrant, modern economy. Unregulated markets would be chaotic, unfair and unlikely to deliver what people want safe, reliable products and a clean environment in which to live and work.
Society benefits from less pollution and waste and improved quality of life. Businesses can also be better off with clear standards that are enforced effectively, rather than uncertainty and unfair competition from those who ignore the rules.
Business can benefit directly because regulation in areas such as energy efficiency and waste reduction can deliver cost savings and help companies develop more attractive products.
According to (1990) countries with high environmental standards often have market-leading firms and record better economic performance than those with lower standards6. This is because high standards can stimulate innovation both in firms selling environmental solutions and in those having to comply.
. (1995) has recognized that “The data clearly show that the costs of addressing environmental regulations can be minimized, if not eliminated, through innovation that delivers other benefits.”
(1994) has observed that “Contrary to common perceptions, higher environmental standards in industrial countries have not tended to lower their international competitiveness.” (1995) says “There is no evidence that industries affected by regulatory costs do poorly in international markets.”
References
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment