written by Margaret Culver and Hannah Kerby, edited by Abby Renko
The Public
Issues Forum separates the discussion into 3 discussion points: Regulation,
Innovation and Culture. The first position focuses on
repairing and protecting crucial resources quickly and drastically through
organized and government regulations.
Many
natural resources on Earth including clean water and rich agricultural land are
dwindling quickly. If things continue to progress the way they are now, we will
be facing a dim future with limited natural resources. Out of fairness to our
future generations and the rest of the world, it is our job to act on this
problem and move towards generating solutions.
This
position argues that local recycling and reducing waste have gained popularity
but are not significantly affecting the rate at which we utilize our natural
resources. These proactive measures hold individual importance but are
unfortunately not widespread enough to enact real change in our future.
Though one
may think the obvious response to these issues is to advocate immediate and
aggressive action today, many drawbacks exist to the entire country becoming
more environmentally conscious so quickly. For one, our market could not
sustain the entire population converting to renewable energy and eating locally
grown food. In fact, only 13% of the nation’s electrical power was generated
from renewable energy sources in 2011. It is also simply not feasible for
everyone to make the switch over a short period of time.
Creating an
organized plan for making significant yet somewhat uncomfortable changes to the
way we live presents a plausible solution that could eventually lead to a more
sustainable America. These changes would primarily involve the government in an
effort to make selection of environmentally sustainable options more affordable
for the average citizen.
The costs
may seem overwhelming when we begin these efforts, but they will be
overshadowed by the immense amount of progress we look forward to seeing in the
future. By taking economic measures, we come closest to this ideal future. For
example, our government could increase legislation punishing citizens for
recreational and unnecessary use of resources; these negative incentives could
include stricter and more expensive taxes, surcharges, and fines. If we cannot
make citizens see the “good” in reducing their impact, we need to make them see
the “bad” that their actions actively contribute to.
Option one recognizes
that the cost of our resource use and the amount that we pay for these
resources are dramatically disproportionate. Countries such as France, Germany,
and the United Kingdom all pay much higher gas taxes than we do in order to encourage
citizens to carpool or use more environmentally friendly means of
transportation.
Another
important point to consider is the availability and inexpensiveness of certain
resources. For example, water is relatively inexpensive and readily available
in America. Lawns and golf courses can be kept lush and green even in the
driest of seasons, and citizens can take long showers with little consequences.
But do we really need those perfect lawns, and those excessively long showers?
What if we put limitations on the use of water in households?
Similarly,
gas is available to nearly all citizens. As controversial as it may be, raising
gas prices would cause the Unites States as a whole to use less gas and
eventually, the price increases would produce positive effects in the future. Other general economic limitations could include rationing
the resources citizens are allowed to consume, allotting everyone a minimum
amount of electrical-power needed for daily tasks, and punishing those who
exceed their personal limit.
A final
suggestion encompassed by option one involves encouraging business to join with
their competitors and voluntarily adopt industry-wide standards to reduce
environmental impact. This would create an incentive for businesses to use
resources in a smarter way, and it would lead to accomplishing the necessary
impact we desire in terms of sustainability.
Though the majority of
these suggestions involve government regulation, utilizing the government to
impose such measures on citizens has its drawbacks. The high quality of life
and abundance of resources we are used to will inevitably undergo changes.
Though everyday luxuries would not cost more money, taxes would rise on currently
inexpensive goods, business production costs and prices would rise, and
rationing would necessitate a new and different way of living. All in all, the
outcome is up to us. Are we willing to sacrifice some things in the short term
for an overall better quality of life in the long term? The choice is up to
you.
Remember to join us on Wednesday, Feb 27 and Thursday, Feb 28 at Webster's to join in this public deliberation.
