Economic Faults in Environmental Public Policy

    The gloomy gray cloud of our environmental issues is rapidly expanding and will eventually engulf our beloved planet Earth in an inevitable state of decay. Leaders and public figures must use their podium to light beacons of hope and raise a general awareness surrounding environmental sustainability; however, the government must balance both economic and environmental needs properly.   

    To set the stage of this worldwide epidemic, we must carefully and concisely contextualize the current attitudes and actions of countries around the globe. Taxes are a major energy conserving measure adopted by the Singaporean government, in particular car drivers pay an annual tax that specifically punishes high-powered, gas guzzling engines. Many policy makers have advised that the U.S. adopt similar policies. The policy itself is a textbook example of a government correcting a negative externality. However, there is an issue with these attempts that sticks out like a sore thumb. When resources are reallocated in this fashion, the price level will rise and trotting along after it will be a significant jump in the cost of living. When governments aimlessly arrive upon the decision to intervene they often futilely fail to account for the well-being of none other than their own citizens.

    If we zoom out and look at the effects of government intervention on a national stage, there are endless economic faults that one can foresee. Just as a heads up the United States government is currently already 32 trillion dollars and counting in debt. This outrageous figure will only rise at a faster rate when the government decides to irresponsibly mess with the mechanical system that is our economy. Environmentalists tend to not only maximize the dangers of global warming from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases, but they also minimize the cost of dealing with it. Environmental activists, that have won the minds of the government, all too often overestimate what can be done to fight climate change. Their unreasonable optimism leaves a blind spot for faults such as economic instability to rest. Environmentalist models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: there are no business cycles, the economy is always at full employment, strong growth is assumed. These ambiguous assumptions allow for initiatives that focus sharply on the environment, leaving the people’s well-being in the dust. Stubborn views on an issue have led to only radical solutions to be recognized. Yet, in reality, balance is the roadmap that will lead America to a destination of safety and success.

    On that same note of keeping balance, I must admit that sustaining our environment is not something to be swept under the rug. As I mentioned previously, it is more than crucial that awareness is raised through the roof and that change continuously follows it. However, inflicting change is not always a piece of cake, and the slowly burning candles on our environmental cake will not be blown out easily. This detrimental difficulty may be why governments turn to detrimental policies that would eventually ruin every aspect of life besides the environment. For this I cannot blame them, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is not in dire need of new policies. America has charged upon the forefront of change for centuries now and that is more than evident. Data collected by Gallup news has shown that the United States is in the top three of multiple forms of environmental activism. The subscript of their research even states that American and Japanese residences express the highest levels of environmental stewardship. The apparent activism and awareness in America is good enough reason alone to let our economy operate in peace and let our citizens prosper. 

    Balance will always prevail in the long run. However, government action forcefully interferes with the delicate scale that balances that economy and the environment. When this balance is upset in desperate attempts to save one side, everyone will be hurt in the long run. We must carefully counter climate change with initiatives that do not involve fiscal intervention. For would we really be better off in a state of poverty and global depression just to insufficiently slow global warming?

Sources utilized: 

Gallup News