At the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima or Why Political Questions Are Not All Economic
How do you place a dollar value on something like the peacefulness of a forest, the gentle flow of a creek through a mountain pass, or the solitude of an open landscape? Can you? Environmental issues that involve the degradation of these landscapes are largely ignored. It has been decided that the cost of preserving such landscapes greatly outweighs the benefits that the land could be yielding to society in another form. Many of the decisions that companies and the legislative bodies make are based on what is most efficient and yields the largest number of benefits. The preservation of a landscape is often determined by the public’s willingness to pay for an unchanged environment, or their willingness to pay for the goods and services that may result from an industry established on that land. The government imposes regulations to control overexploitation of the land and ensure the safety of the public from the wastes that an industry may create. However, these regulations may impede the company’s ability to maximize efficiency and profit. Most regulations have minimal fines associated when they are broken, and thus companies can break the rules and still increase their profits after paying the fines.
It is difficult to perform a cost benefit analysis on the environment since there is no fixed dollar amount that can measure the costs and benefits associated with changes to the environment resulting from industrial development or when the environment is left unchanged. As a result, many people argue that the decisions made surrounding the preservation of the landscape should be based on value judgements that consider what is ethical, not on judgements that consider economical values such as wealth and efficiency. Altering a river’s course to provide water for irrigational purposes may result in larger profits for the farmer who can now grow more crops. However, if such a practice occurred, the environment surrounding the river will be greatly impacted and changed forever. Are the farmer’s profits worth the loss of life that would occur downstream from where the river was diverted? We have no means to measure this loss.
In a similar manner, decisions regarding the health and safety of the public should not be determined through economical judgements. Based on an economical approach, if the benefits associated with the production of goods or services exceed the costs associated with implementing practices to protect the workers, the company will endanger the workers as they strive for maximum profit. The amount of profit a company makes should not take precedence over the health of the workers who provide those goods and services.
In the corporation’s eyes, workers and the environment are simply commodities that can be bought and sold or discarded when no longer needed. Because people are not objects or things and since the environment consists of many different living things, commodifying either would be unethical. Life, which is preserved through good health and proper safety, has no price, and therefore can’t be considered in a cost benefit analysis when assessing the impacts associated with a corporation’s actions. A person is worth more than the labour that they can provide.
Furthermore, to endanger people through the exposure of toxic substances is the same as physically harming them. If a person walked up to another person on the street and stabbed him or her, the victim would suffer bodily harm or death and the person committing the assault would be classified a criminal according to the law. Corporations are not classified as criminals because their actions are not considered illegal, despite the number of people they affect. Laws often do not hold them responsible for their actions. More people are harmed through unsafe work places, indecent exposure to toxic chemicals, and malpractice than are murdered and physically assaulted on the streets. Since corporations greatly influence the politicians who make up the government through funding campaigns, governments hesitate to classify any corporations as criminals and risk losing the economic benefits to their countries or the funding they may require in the next campaign. Corporations will support the politicians that have the policies and regulations most favourable to their economic growth. Again, decisions made by the governments are based on economical judgements, and not the public’s well-being.
Reducing hazardous wastes, altering industrial practices to reduce their environmental impact, and seeking more environmentally sustainable products are issues that the public demand the government and corporations resolve. However, on an individual level, the person then becomes the consumer of the products that the company makes, often purchasing these products that harm the environment. For example, society complains that gas prices are too high and vehicles need to be made with greater gasoline efficiencies, yet these same people then buy SUV’s and 4X4 trucks.
Corporations argue that they only supply the goods that consumers wish to buy, often countering that consumers are the only ones who can decide what they spend their money on. Therefore, if consumers really have the power to control the actions of corporations through where they spend their money, why don’t they put their money where their mouth is? The main reason is that people are often irrational and constantly contradict themselves. Just like the company, they want to get the most out of what resources they have. People may argue that there are not enough environmentally sustainable products on the market, yet when presented with products that are environmentally friendly they often buy the generic brand because it is cheaper.
Easton T. Classic edition sources: environmental studies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. pp. 166-71.
