Saturday, January 28, 2012

We've got the power


In many developed countries the standard economy is a capitalistic economy. With an unlimited buying power, compared to undeveloped countries, our possibilities of shopping are endless. With great power comes great responsibility. As a whole, people have ignored the growing environmental crisis but we are now are being forced to address the problem. Our capitalistic ways of getting what we want when we want have added to landfills without any true thought about what to do to lessen our impact on earth. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) only has two executive orders in place for the United States. With little regulation, or framework, to address sustainability, we consumers need to call attention to the government as well as be productive while waiting for more legislation to pass. Fashioning Sustainability suggests that companies become more transparent with how they produce their merchandise; consumers should not expect companies to plainly place their practices on their website but should investigate for themselves. By doing so consumers are getting a full scope. One of EMSA promising interventions is for government to provide a framework for companies to build on. Consumers should demand this change. We as consumers have more power because we are the government and we can make changes.

In Pricing Environmental Impacts: The Tale of Two T-shirts, the authors introduce a new form of costing to include externalities. Externalities can be human health or ecological damage. Walsh and Brown suggest that producers should include these externalities. While this seems like a great idea, the question that I immediately thought of was, “What happens to these past externalities?” Companies just do not go back and cost externalities later. While the intention is thoughtful and could work for companies that are just starting, well-established companies might have a hard time going back and add these to their ledgers later. I believe companies should not real costing but rather devise a different way to see their impact so they can work towards reducing their ecological footprint. Even if local governments created a system for companies to see each other’s footprint and provide tax benefits or some sort of token economy, our communities could see and improve on the progress being made. 

4 comments:

  1. HI Elizabeth, I agree with you on the issue that we as consumers can and should demand that corporations make these changes. I agree that the government should try to reward companies who try to erase their ecological footprints, but what benefits other than tax benefits should these companies get?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Elizabeth,
    I like that your blog is short and to the point. It is well researched and established. I agree with you on your point about how consumers need to step up and initiate the change that they want to see. We can't always wait on them to do it for us. Your point of view on the pricing method is interesting and provides a little food for thought. I would have liked to seen what the EPA regulations are though. Also, watch your wording in a couple places because it gets a little confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe the definite benefits would be that they can show consumers they are making a positive impact. Because of the prevalence of sustainability is causing consumers to look for information. I believe consumers would be more likely and willing to pay higher costs if they knew companies were doing things to better the environment rather than destroy it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Elizabeth, I love how you encourage consumers to take action even is legislators are slowly becoming active on the issue of sustainability. I'm really intrigued by the argument you proposed against previous externalities. You add a new perspective concerning how to measure the environmental cost.

    ReplyDelete