Danga, Angelica Marie G. IV- St. Therese of Lisieux
Critical Analysis on Smog Merchants
Pollution has been one of the big problems of our world. This has pushed many people who are concern enough to create programs that will help reduce the problem and this Smog Merchants article is technically, one of those. But I don’t think marketing the right to pollute will help in any way. It is more like allowing destruction to come to the environment. In this article, it was implied that firms that are able to reduce pollutants below the levels to which it is entitled receives credits, and they can sell these credits to other firms. The thing is that, first, why will you sell pollution rights when the name itself states that you’re giving someone the capability to pollute noted that the problem you are solving is pollution itself. Second, a company who cannot reach the goal tends to buy these credits rather than improving their facility and emissions reductions because it is way cheaper. So how can this help when the only thing it can visibly do is to create firms that are dependent to the credits of other firms that are successful in cutting pollutants in the lowest cost.
It has been said that the environment is a free resource, and air is no doubt a part of it. In number two question, it is being asked “who implicitly has property rights to the air when the EPA auctions SO2 permits” My answer to this would be: everyone, and no, I did not depend on who gets the revenue raised by the auction. Everyone has his right to consume air or use air or whatever you would like to do with air. It is part of the environment and thus, a free resource. The EPA auctions or the allowances aim to reduce the emissions of sulphur dioxide. And firms are allowed to buy and sell these allowances to other firms when left unused. I believe that this doesn’t affect the people’s rights to the air.
The environment is a priceless resource. Since then, people have been witnesses of the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document