Choi 1

Kwi-Hyun Choi 11/29/2010 ESL 151 Melissa A. Basalla

The Failure of Environmental Law

Perhaps, every human on the surface of the earth agrees with that we must protect our planet from being destroyed, abused and contaminated. Since we all know that destroying is easy and quick while recovering from damage is much harder and longer, we always have had a good attitude and belief about the idea of protecting our planet. However, when it comes to laws, we have quite a different attitude toward it because everyone cannot benefit from laws. Some people can take benefits from laws, whereas others can take disadvantage of them. The attitude is usually affected by side effects from enforcing laws, mis-legislated laws or other correlated phenomena. Although some people believe that stricter environmental laws should be applied, I believe stricter environmental laws are not necessary since current laws have already caused lots of side effects. Therefore, stricter environmental laws will not solve the problems we are facing. First of all, it is the recent movement that people insist that some environmental laws are not worthy to invest our money into them. The government has spent taxpayer dollars on prohibiting contamination and surveillance of pollution rather than building a forest and recovering the contaminated land. If they put just portion of interest of the environmental law funds, they can build a huge forest like the Yosemite Park. As Autumn Hanna in the report, Green Scissors 2010, states, Green Scissors 2010 identifies more $200 billion in wasteful

Choi 2

government subsidies that are damaging to the environment and harmful to consumers (2). In his figure, we can save lots of money by just cutting fund on the environmental laws which not only harm the environment but also waste taxpayer dollars. In addition, considering the United States is facing a $13 trillion debt, saving money has much higher priority than spending money in order to make our economy healthy. As Hanna also relates, This massive subsidy does not go to family corn farmers or even agro-businesses or ethanol producers. Instead, the benefits go almost entirely to oil companies, such as Shell Oil, that blend the ethanol with traditional fuel (12). This is an example of how taxpayer dollars waste. Although taxpayer dollars are supposed to spend for taxpayers convenience or benefits, it seems that we are paying for some companies benefits. Despite all these evidences that some environmental laws are damaging to both our environment and our economic health, the government should fund more money if they want to make more and stricter environmental laws. Some people may believe that the funding of environmental laws is sacrificing our economic health for protecting our planet. However, I faithfully believe that everyone knows there are huge differences between the meaning of wasting and sacrificing. As a result, we should eliminate wasteful environmental laws instead of making stricter environmental laws which require more funds. Then, we should use money effectively to protect our environment. Every country has been pursuing their profits rather than protecting planet. Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have increased the amount of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the one of main causes of global warming which is referred to the increase in the average temperature of the Earths surface. As global warming affects everything on the Earth such as sea level, ecosystems, and ice cover, many countries realize that they need to take action in order to protect and preserve the Earth. As a

Choi 3

result, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 that industrialized countries and the European countries must reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, here is the problem. Did every country ratify the Kyoto Protocol? According to the article, Bush: Kyoto treaty would have hurt economy, it states, the United States, the world's largest emitter of such gases, has refused to ratify the agreement, saying it would harm the economy and is flawed by the lack of restrictions on emissions by China and India (Web). Although the United States should have ratified the agreement, George W. Bush gave it up because he worried about the economy than the environment. Besides, did the European countries comply with the Kyoto Protocol? As David Gow in his article, Figures reveal Europe falling far short of climate targets, relates, seven countries - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain - would exceed their individual emission limits, which are binding under EU law. Even with extra measures, Spain is projected to exceed its 1990 emissions by 51.3% in 2010, compared with an allowed increase under Kyoto of 15% (Web). The evidence proves that every country is more likely to care their economy growth than comply the environmental law. If the stricter law is applied to countries, fewer countries will comply with it. What happen if there is no one who complies with a law? The law is meaningless at all. Therefore, we need to focus more on the existing environmental laws and force countries to obey. Otherwise, the environmental laws will become useless and the waste of time and money. Some poor countries insist that most environmental laws are benefits to well-developed countries only. Since the Industrial Revolution, the economic gap between the rich and poor countries has been wider. Nowadays, among over 200 countries in the world, only about 20 countries are leading the world economy. The leading countries have raised their voices about the planet protection; therefore, they have made and signed several international environmental

Choi 4

treaties. However, when they advise other poor countries to sign the treaties, poor countries are very reluctant to sign them because the treaties usually contain the limitation of using natural resources. As Kelly Hearn in his article, Activists are fighting a new agreement between the U.S. and Peru, states, a poor country dependent on its exploitable natural resources (Web). Limitation of collecting and using their natural resources are risking their basic rights; the rights of living. In addition, the environmental laws without considering the difference of economic and environmental capabilities and priorities of developing countries lead to the failure to comply with them. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, was adopted by well-developed countries that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, developing countries cannot comply with it since they cannot control the gas emissions. Moreover, even though they can control greenhouse gas emissions, they wouldnt care about reducing the gas emissions because they cannot develop their industries and economy without the gas emissions. Therefore, the flat generalization of the environmental laws raises a number of challenges for developing countries. Without considering the difference between well-developed and developing countries, the effectiveness of the environmental laws will be smaller. Thus, we should concentrate on improving the environmental laws with considering the differences among countries rather than making stricter environmental laws. The way of approaching to protect our planet should on the perspective of ethics from environmental regulation. Generally, people know that our environment has been destroyed due to the lack of adequate and strict laws. However, the laws, especially the environmental laws cannot stop the destruction of our environment perfectly because the ones attitude toward protecting our planet is altered when the laws affect economy badly, or he takes disadvantage of it. However, we must remember that every human being on the Earth is always depending on the

Choi 5

environment. If we continue to destroy our environment, we will face natural disasters caused by climate change. Consequently, the attitude toward protecting our environment shouldnt be changed because there wont be human being without the environment. In order to keep the attitude, we should consider our environment seriously as we cannot live without breathing the air. As Chris Holberg in his article, Profits Before Planet: the global failure of environmental regulation, states, [t]his is what we have failed to achieve after so many attempts at meaningful environmental legislation, then the current political and economic system is incapable of dealing with the problems we face, and no amount of protest or pressure politics can change that fundamental fact (Web). What we can see from his conclusion is the current political and economic system cannot solve the problems. Then, what can solve the problems? In my opinion, we shouldnt depend on environmental regulation in order to protect our environment. Instead of it, each of us should understand the importance of our environment and take action to save our planet. In conclusion, sometimes people believe that laws can solve the problem. However, laws are more likely to prevent the occurrences of the problem rather than solve the problem. Due to the nature of laws, laws are limited in order to solve the fundamental of the problem. Moreover, enforcing stricter laws can result in more damage to the environment because more side effects will appear, and more people will ignore them. In order to solve the environmental problems we are facing, the individuals should understand the importance of the environment and take action instead of depending on laws. It is crucial for everyone to protect the environment since human beings can be affected by the environment seriously. When everybody is aware of the importance of saving the environment, we will be able to not only save our planet but also bequeath the healthy environment to the next generation.

Choi 6

Works Cited

Bush: Kyoto treaty would have hurt economy. msnbc.com. 30 Jun. 2005. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8422343/ns/politics/> Gow, David. Figures reveal Europe falling far short of climate targets. Guardian News. 28 Oct. 2006. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/28/uk.eu> Hanna, Autumn, Green Scissors 2010. Friends of the Earth. 22 Jul. 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/GreenScissors2010.pdf> Hearn, Kelly. Activists are fighting a new agreement between the U.S. and Peru. Grist. 11 May 2006. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://www.grist.org/article/hearn2/> Holberg, Chris. Profits Before Planet: the global failure of environmental regulation. New Renaissance Magazine. Mar. 2002. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://www.ru.org/ecology-and-environment/profits-before-planet-the-global-failure-ofenvironmental-regulation.html>