Equity
Within Nations
Proximity
to problems
Inequities
leading to problems
•
Impacts of measures
Inequity
in decision making
Equity
Between Nations
International
Economic System
Global
Warming and Equity
References
Site
Map
|
Impacts of Measures to Protect the Environment
|
Measures to improve environmental problems may impact more on some sectors of the community than others.
It is argued by the government and the business sector that, if measures to protect the environment were to affect the competitiveness of Australian industries in the international market, not only would the nation suffer from reduced income but particular groups within our society would suffer disproportionately. The Commonwealth Government (1990, p. 7) warns:
To the extent that a move to ecologically sustainable development affects the international competitiveness of entire industries or sectors of the economy, significant macro- economic impacts might be felt. The current account deficit and the nation's overseas indebtedness might be exacerbated. This, in turn, could affect the level of interest rates and inflation.
The Business Council of Australia argues that any reduction in demand for Australian products would depress the economy and impact 'upon society's most vulnerable members, women, the aged, the disabled' (1991, p. 7).
Costs to individual companies and workers
Measures to protect the environment can have an impact on equity in a second and related way through the impact on individual firms and projects. It is argued that important benefits and jobs are lost each time a development is stopped on environmental grounds. Similarly, it is argued that if environmental laws and standards are too tough, costs in compliance will be high&emdash;which could lead to a firm having to shed staff or in an extreme case having to shut down.
On the other hand, the continued pollution created by that firm, or the degradation that would be caused by the development that was stopped, would also impact on others who do not get the benefits of the jobs and income generated in this way. As was noted earlier, environmental regulations to control pollution may in fact create more jobs than are lost. Nevertheless, even if overall employment levels are not reduced by environmental measures, some workers may suffer by losing their jobs; and in times of high unemployment they may find it difficult to find other work.
The unions have recognised that people might suffer in the labour market adjustments that accompany moves toward sustainable development. The peak union body, the ACTU, has insisted on 'relocation and retraining schemes designed to facilitate movement of people from redundant positions and firms to new employment' so that the individual and community costs associated with unemployment are minimised (ACTU & UMFA 1992, p. 13).
The ACTU, while committed to achieving sustainable development, is concerned that measures taken to achieve it might lead to a deterioration in Australia's balance of trade, a larger pool of unemployed, downgrading of average wages and conditions and non-wage benefits, and a winding-down of towns and infrastructure in rural areas. It argues that:
There will be losers as well as winners in any restructuring of our economy, regardless of whether the aggregate outcome is positive or negative. In many instances those affected will also be those with the least options in alternative employment (eg workers without tertiary or adaptable trade qualifications). It is this spectre and the kinds of fears listed above that have contributed to instances of worker and trade union hostility to environmental issues. These instances may multiply if such fears are not addressed at each step of the process in achieving ESD. (p. 13)
Some environmentalists argue for a guaranteed minimum income for all Australians to ensure that no-one will go hungry or lack the money to meet their basic needs. They argue that unemployed people should not be penalised for their lack of a paying job by having to undergo demeaning work tests and the other trials that are at present part of the social security system. Robyn Eckersley (1992, p. 131) describes the objectives of a guaranteed minimum income policy as follows:
- to offset the possibly inequitable consequences of environmental policies;
- to liberalise attitudes towards work and to encourage more flexible working arrangements;
- to abolish unemployment and poverty traps;
- to make the current welfare system more efficient and streamlined;
- to encourage self-organised work;
- to confer greater independence on disadvantaged groups such as single parents and disabled people;
- to break down extreme differences in income.
Such a policy would be financed from the savings made in streamlining the social security system, from taxation, and from environmental charges and resource royalties. Robin Powell goes one step further and argues for a universal basic income for everyone in every country: she argues that this would reduce exploitation of rainforests and marginal agricultural land, would help to reduce population levels, and would allow alternative, non-material values to flourish and social energies to be redirected towards a sustainable future.
The third way in which measures to protect the environment can have an impact on equity is by costs being imposed on a certain section of the society whose members may not be able to afford them. For example, a tax imposed on polluting behaviour is only useful environmentally if alternative action is available or possible. Otherwise, the environment does not benefit and the tax-paying individual is simply worse off financially. For example, raising energy costs&emdash;with the aim of encouraging people to buy more energy-efficient models of common and widely used consumer products such as fridges, cars and electric globes&emdash;may impact hardest on those who cannot afford to replace or upgrade their consumer goods. Also, if prices are to rise to reflect the real environmental costs of producing goods, those who can barely afford such goods now will suffer from the price rises unless they are compensated in some way&emdash;for example, by ensuring they have a guaranteed minimum income and tax cuts.
Another example would be a petrol tax imposed on someone who had to travel a long distance to get to work and who did not have access to alternative means of getting there, such as public transport. The person would be forced to pay the tax&emdash;and would suffer the double disadvantage of having to travel a long distance each day and having to pay extra to do so. Since it is often the poor who are forced to live in the outer suburbs, because that is where the cheapest housing can be found, such a measure would impose its greatest burden on those least able to pay.
A variation on the above situation was highlighted by the 1993 Budget in which the Commonwealth government said it would not only raise petrol prices but it would raise the price of leaded petrol even more to create an incentive for people to buy unleaded petrol. It did this in response to widespread scientific and community concerns about the health risks for children from lead in petrol. The increase was, however, greeted with anger by some sections of the community. It was argued by welfare groups that poorer people would suffer a double insult because they were the least able to afford the more expensive leaded petrol and yet they were also the ones most likely to own older cars that ran on leaded petrol. Because the differential in price between leaded and unleaded petrol was proposed to be fairly small, 2 cents a litre to begin with, those who could afford to buy new cars would be unlikely to have sufficient incentive to do so yet those who would feel the increase the most would be least able to afford a new car. As a result the measure faced the real prospect of raising revenue for the Commonwealth without materially lowering the lead burden in the environment. The poor would suffer the double disadvantage of paying more for their fuel without gaining a compensating environmental benefit.
Shifting environmental problems
Environmental measures can also have inequitable effects if environmental problems are shifted from one place to another, or concentrated in one place. A traditional example of this takes place when an area is sewered for the first time and its sewage is discharged into a waterway. The environment of the newly sewered area is certainly improved; but the waterway is degraded, and its users, particularly those who might draw water from it downstream, are disadvantaged.
One example of this occurred when some European nations made their smokestacks higher to avoid localised pollution. This served only to spread the pollution&emdash;particularly acid rain&emdash;to other nations. Another Australian example was provided by a proposal in the 1980s to incinerate hazardous wastes in a central high-temperature incinerator. Most of the hazardous wastes in Australia are stored in Sydney at Botany, but the Commonwealth Government and the NSW and Victorian governments wanted to build an incinerator near a rural town. Rural residents felt that they were being unjustly lumbered with an unwanted facility so that urban environments could be made safer. (In 1992, the Commonwealth Government announced that such a facility would not be built&emdash;largely in response to these protests.)
Policies such as tradeable pollution rights used in the USA can also cause local inequities. These rights allow some firms to exceed environmental standards by buying pollution credits from companies that have reduced their emissions beyond the required standards (see chapter 11). This trading enables average air-quality standards to be met at the least cost, but it may cause unfair pollution loads to those living near the companies that continue to exceed air-quality standards.
Source: Beder, Sharon, The Nature of Sustainable Development, 2nd ed., Scribe, Newham, 1996, pp. 166-185.