Environmental Economics Case
I magine a factory located upstream that pollutes a river. It produces steel for the automotive industry. Downstream, local fishermen find they catch less fishes due to the pollution.
The problem here is that both groups have the right to engage the economic activity they are doing and none of them are guilty of having a negative impact on the other. Although I do believe it’s the governments’ obligation to promote an environmental legislation that restricts the amount of pollution produced by industries in order to maintain fish stocks at an appropriate level.
So, the first step should be that the government sets a cap or limit to the pollution an industry can emit into the river systems of the country or region. This limit at first should not be very strict and should be below the maximum fish stocks and the ecosystems can tolerate and work properly. They should establish a time frame for before this new legislation starts ruling with the idea of allowing the steel factory to take appropriate measure to reduce their pollution. Since the steel factory will probably need to invest money to, let’s say, build or install a water treatment plant. In the mean time the government should subsidize the fishermen for their losses until the fish stocks get back to their normal level. Through time this has to cap should get lower until it has no considerable negative impact on the environment.
Comments Off on Environmental Economics Case /
26 Nov 2011
por
Javier Solano Palacios
IMSD /
.png)
].gif)
.png){kind=logo}
].png)
].png)
].png)
].png)
.png){kind=logo}
].png)
.png){kind=logo}
