So this is the fight going on between pressure groups and the government.
I feel that the government has a very large part to play in aiming for sustainable development. Surely nothing can be done for the environment without the government’s consent, support and even funding. As voters for the election winner and as taxpayers we expect the government to put into practice such policies as the preservation of green belts, and the protection of national parks, beaches and mountains. We also expect governments to take action against any business or individual who breaks laws set up to protect the environment, or regulations concerning the amount of waste they may produce.
A recent summit was centred upon the need to convince the USA, which produces much of the world’s greenhouse gases to make serious efforts to bring down the amount of greenhouse gases given off. The summit did not achieve that aim, and many believe that the British government was at fault for not giving the other delegates more reason to agree to the new measures. This shows how much the government really is responsible for the environment and how much difference what they do or don’t do really makes.
The tiny changes that the few people who are in power make to environmental policies can result in a big difference when translated to the national or even worldwide scale. In the same way a small change for each individual, such as recycling any recyclable goods, can end up making a huge difference when everyone in the country does it.
If everybody was held accountable for the difference they make to the environment, and we all simply had to leave our environment no better or worse then when we came to it there would not be such a deterioration in standards.
Of course this is nearly impossible to do and it is inevitable that some people will care more for the environment than others. However I feel that if more effort could be made by the media to alert people to the way the environment is going then people would be more likely to do their bit. If people are not reminded of the things going on in their world then they will often try -and succeed -to forget. But then perhaps this is the job of the government – to train people to inform the public of the environment’s state and perhaps to do promotions on the television or other media.
There is always the worry that the public will become immune to shocking statistics or terrible photos if there is an overkill in the media, and often enough, unless there is a particular crisis going on, the environment is considered old news.
The public will probably never get motivated by themselves to do something but everybody does have a share of responsibility to the environment.
Why does it have to be that some people spend years of their lives protesting for the environment and doing whatever they can while others do not even pick up their own litter or recycle their rubbish?
This is where pressure groups come in – self organised committees, charities or just groups of people who are set up with the specific aim of putting pressure on the government and businesses in the hope of a change in policy. In Greenpeace’s own words their role is to “expose such issues of environmental irresponsibility - and to help citizens and consumers to exert real influence. Politicians must recognise that damage to the environment and human health cannot simply be "discounted" against economic gain. For as long as the "economic argument" remains paramount, truly responsible decision-making will remain out of reach.”
Greenpeace and other pressure groups don’t have a responsibility as such for the environment other than them being members of the public. This is because they have not been put into their position or made certain promises to the public to gain their place. Greenpeace is run on a voluntary basis and anyone who works for the organisation does so because he or she cares about the environment.
This means that with pressure groups there is no worry of them putting other things above the environment as this is their one and only concern and this is what the group exists to protect.
The responsibility that Greenpeace does have is to spend any money it is given wisely and on the cause it was provided for but as I said there is no real worry in this as this is what they wish to have money to spend on anyway.
Greenpeace states their three main aims at the recent Basel Convention as
Ҥ Ban pollution transfer and implement pollution prevention
§ Take responsibility for your own actions
§ Tackle the causes not the symptoms”
Greenpeace also see another area to hold responsible for the environment – Science.
“It is time for governments to grow up about science: to accept that science cannot, in itself, be the arbiter of policy choice and to recognise that its essential role in guiding decisions relating to new technologies is only effectively served when the limits to scientific method and knowledge are explicitly accounted for. Politicians must also accept that we may not need or want some new technologies at all - and that these are society-wide decisions, not ones just for 'scientists' or for shareholders...Society needs to be able to assess the need for new technologies or, indeed, for the continuation of existing ones.”
Greenpeace feels that the government is letting science take a too high price against the environment.
”With too few exceptions, politicians and governments still assume that science is an independent objective process which creates a knowledge of the world more 'valuable' than any other system. They are frightened to intervene.”
The last area which may be thought responsible are businesses. This is because businesses all over the world contribute so much to pollution, as everything they do or make is on a bigger scale. If they have to burn coal to heat a furnace then they’ll have to burn huge amounts every day.
However businesses have been realising this for some while and some of the more sceptical among us might say they are realising that there is money to be made out of getting a competitive advantage using the environment.
One business which has recently launched an extremely large promotion trying to persuade the public that it is environmentally friendly is BP.
The fact that BP is an oil producer is why this promotion is considered so necessary as the oil industry are such heavy polluters out of necessity, and also that they are using non renewable fuels which are quickly running out.
Here is what BP say on their website;
“At BP we are dedicated to improving the quality of our fuels and making a positive contribution to a cleaner environment. Our commitment will, over time, help reduce emissions without denying people the fundamental right of mobility.
In the UK we are turning this commitment into reality through our Cleaner Fuels programme. We are introducing four new BP fuels to our service stations which benefit the environment by reducing vehicle emissions, and thereby improving the quality of the air that we breathe...This website covers some of the things BP is doing to improve our environment, and also shows how you can help - because together, we can make a difference.
Contrary to some beliefs, we can all make a positive contribution to improving the quality of the air that we breathe. It is obvious, but the less pollution we all create the better for everyone. By making even a small effort to cut down on your vehicle's emissions you'll be helping to improve our urban air quality and limit the impact on our climate.”
This shows that BP feels it has a responsibility to the environment and is willing to fulfil it.
This is because BP knows that the environment is something which affects everyone and so no other marketing campaign can reach as many people. To say that this is the only reason is cynical, and perhaps unfair when BP have put so much money in to their “cleaner fuels” campaign, and actually creating some cleaner fuels for their service stations.
But does it really matter what BP’s motives are as long as they go green? As long as they do not lie on their adverts can they be begrudged a rise in demand? Perhaps this competitive advantage will encourage their competitors to “go green” as well.
They get a good deal because their reputation is better thanks to their environmentally friendly status, and because of this people are more likely to stop at their filling stations, so increasing demand and ultimately profits.
I conclude that everybody e.g. the public is responsible for the environment. However the emphasis is on the government to make sure that the public and businesses all do their bit.
