Reader’s opinion|The debate about the environment has reached a dead end.
Recent the news about environmental violations has stirred emotions both in the countryside and in the cities. As we well know, negative news that appeals to emotions is more powerful than fact-based news about how the vast majority of activities are fully compliant with the rules. This becomes especially problematic when the perception of the emotional level becomes a subjective fact and an argument stronger than reality. This is what has happened in the debate about environmental policy, where you often come across an absolute dividing line between who works for the environment and who doesn’t (HS 5.8.).
Environmental protection an ideology has been created whose goal is absolutely good. It is considered a commodity of necessity, and few are against the idea of nurturing nature. When we move from people’s minds to reality, the connotation becomes negative. Environmental regulation or taxation is an additional cost that makes both production and consumption expensive.
“
If an environmentally optimal change is to be achieved, the current logic must change.
It is clear that violations against nature should be addressed, but above all they should be prevented. Helsingin Sanomat (29.8.) compilation of Finland’s most outrageous environmental scandals stated that the cases are often about money, the risk of getting caught is low and the punishment practice is mild. If continuous economic growth in society is the guiding goal of all activities and the goal of companies is to maximize profit, who will be surprised by the effort to minimize production costs resulting from environmental regulation?
In the world there are very few cases where environmental protection would be a profitable business, but what if it were otherwise? What if, for example, not cutting down a tree would be paid more under market conditions than cutting it down? Everyone would like to protect nature, and not a single tree would fall.
Logic is very simple. If a change that strengthens economic growth and is optimal for the environment is to be achieved, the current logic must change. Instead of a stick, through the carrot market, the land use sector would have a strong financial incentive to implement environmental policy goals even better.
Mary Carlson
doctoral student,
doctoral program in the sustainable use of renewable natural resources, University of Helsinki
The reader’s opinions are speeches written by HS readers, which are selected and delivered by the HS editors. You can leave an opinion piece or familiarize yourself with the principles of the pieces at www.hs.fi/kiryotamielipidekeisuis/.
#Readers #Opinion #Environmental #protection #profitable #business
