Blame-apportionment and Reactionary measures can not remedy Environmental Ailments

Much of environmental management has been reactive. Human action (excess or unwise use or both) created problems; overtime, the problems became apparent and need for solutions inescapable. Remedies had to be found and put in place.

Picture: Smog in Los Angeles, Courtsey: Nathan via Flickr.com under creative commons license.

• » See also: Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions Trends — 1990, 2000, 2008
• » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.

One of the early debates, I recollect, (apart from deforestation due to urbanization and over-exploitation of forests and the consequent need for forest-reserves and afforestation) is of Chloro-fluro- carbons (CFCs). Very simply, intense use of air-conditioning and refrigeration – especially in developed world – has been releasing very harmful quantities of CFCs into the atmosphere; causing Ozone-depletion to the point of creating a hole in the ozone layer in the atmosphere – with serious consequences not only for the environment but quite directly for human health. There was a sudden awakening in Europe and USA, urging people to modify their lifestyles and initiate remedial action: Quite successfully in Western Europe and with some success in the United States. Yet, the damage that had been done has only been partly corrected-for and the situation continues to demand more. One of the fundamental debates has been about who must make what correction based on how responsible who is. The results might have been different if a global concern had served as the guiding light instead of blame-apportionment.

 What are today presented as major conundrums of US policy could be solved more readily with greater vision, allowing a broader and foresight-aided perspective. The problem of whether the EPA or the Agricultural department should have the deciding authority for giving allowances to farmers with respect to GHG emissions (dubbed as the ‘Peterson Problem’) needs to be evaluated in terms of what would be in the best environmental interest. That would help arrive at a true solution – after all, the entire exercise is to ameliorate the environmental quality. And it must not be reduced to an exercise in hegemony- establishment.

Similarly, the battle over Renewable Electricity Standard seems like a political struggle that dilutes an essentially sound initiative to reduce GHGs in order to protect interests of states with pre-dominantly coal-generated power. A visionary approach – as opposed to a short sighted, self-interested one – must become the guiding force of these efforts and others (like offshore drilling or Canadian Crude Oil questions) if more durable outcomes  are desired – and that too in a timely manner.

The call is for broader and far-sighted vision. In fact, a paradigm shift is needed in environmental thinking. There is a need to think ahead – rather than in a reactionary manner.

Tweet This Post