Economics

Tradable rights to pollution refer to being able to buy and sell the right to pollution. Some economists prefer this approach, instead of the command-and-control strategy that will be more costly for the government (Hoffman, 40). The American government already employs tradable rights approach to manage some of its pollution problems. Michael Sandel opposes tradable rights, because even if they can improve market efficiency, they greatly undercut environmental ethics, which are issues that cannot be overlooked. Michael Sandels main concerns about the assignment of tradable rights to pollution are that 1) richer countries can avoid their obligations to reduce emissions by buying credits from less-pollution-producing nations, 2) tradable rights turn pollution into a commodity, and so this removes its social stigma and makes it easier for companies and countries to treat pollution as just another cost of doing business, and 3) tradable rights weaken opportunities for shared responsibility and global cooperation (450). I agree with Sandel because I believe that companies should not just be compelled to cut pollution outputs, merely because they have traded rights, but because they know their moral obligation to communities that are affected by their pollution, and tradable rights in the U.S. have not been entirely successful in making the industries more efficient in responding to environmental concerns.

Companies should not just be compelled to cut pollution outputs, just because they have traded rights, but because they know their moral obligation to communities that are affected by their pollution. Companies and governments have an ethical imperative to protect people from the immediate and long-term consequences of pollution. There are already many examples of people who have died or have been sick because of the pollution that affected their waters, land, and atmosphere. These people could either not find jobs or keep jobs, because of their disabilities that they got from being exposed to pollution. Are the companies who led them to this situation paying for their loss of economic productivity Are they paying their medical bills Perhaps more importantly, do these communities even know that they are being poisoned by pollution and do they know who the culprits are Are these companies also suffering the way these affected people have had, for them to fully understand why it is immoral to treat pollution as just a way of doing business For many developing countries, these questions can be hardly answered because of lack of environmental laws or poor implementation of laws. Yet, they economically suffer and the local economy has been worse off in the long run because of pollution. I believe that companies should not act as if they have no conscience and not consider, at least, the economic impact of their pollution on the lives of families and individuals.

I will now be discussing my second point. Tradable rights in the U.S. have not been entirely successful in making the industries more efficient in responding to environmental concerns. An example is the SO2 allowance trading (Boyd et al., 57). The allowance trading reduced program costs by 30 to 50 percent (Boyd et al., 57). However, it has not been greatly market efficient, because firms tended to rely on their facilities and use the market only as a back-up (Boyd et al., 57). The risk-aversive behavior signifies that the market is not attaining an optimal amount of efficiency, especially if firms know that they can choose to ignore the market anyway (Boyd et al., 57). As a result, the state is even providing incentives for compliance, which only increases costs (Boyd et al., 57). This is only one example of why it is important for companies to develop an ethical approach also to pollution, because market opportunities are not enough for them to comply.

Sandel presents persuasive arguments. With a global environmental ethic, companies and governments will treat pollution with all its social stigma and work collectively to curb and eliminate it, simply because it is IMMORAL. With tradable rights, pollution becomes something like taxes only. But do taxes lead to direct and irreparable health and life damages like pollution can Thus, trading rights are not efficient and they are immoral.