This week's focus is about the environment within the nonprofit sector. I think the whole environmental movement is relatively new, to me as least, and there are many nonprofit that specializes in protecting Earth and its natural resources. Organizations such as Greenpeace, Wildlife Conservation International, and World Wide Fun for Nature (WWF) are all environmental groups who help conserve the planet in someways and protect endanger wildlife. These groups form to address issues of pollution, wildlife endangerment, and the losing of natural resources. In the 21st Century, we have seen much more activism than the past decades, mostly due to our population increasing at a big rate and the consumption of resources, that we must address if we are to be sustainable.
In the "Saving the Environment" reading, it addresses the idea of profiting off environment policies. I think the whole green technology industry is expanding and it would be wise for businesses to invest in these. Even though business would need to spent much more money right now to acquire these technologies, it would save money in the long run. I think a important concept for nonprofit in is to preserve wildlife and watershed in their local communities. Like how social services, nonprofit serve people and improve their lives, environmental groups should focus on the same.
In our nonprofit class, we talk about whether environment groups should accept money from business, something along those lines. I think if they both gain something positive then they should form a partnership. An example is business taking measures to be green friendly by installing solar panels on their buildings and how the environmental groups would support them in return. Business need to be more eco-friendly and conserve resources in the future. I took a international politics about world economics and we mention environment concerns. The concern for business is lost of profits due to regulations and higher costs. An example is the United States have lots of regulations for business such as clean air laws versus business in China with not much environmental law. Businesses in China have a higher advantage where business can pollute as much they can and gain higher profits then those in America. There is no international law to regulate environmental policies such as pollution, clean water, or waste because in reality there is no one to enforce these. The Kyoto Protocol is a example that countries will try to lower their CO2 emission but they are not obligated to and the funny thing is the United States is the only country that has not ratify, meaning they are not agreeing to anything. I think this shows how business in America would be effected and the disadvantages it would have for them, having to follow these new policies and regulations. The link showing this is below.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Kyoto_Protocol_and_the_United_States
The question I would like to discuss is "Should business be obligated to follow these environment laws or should they do whatever they want to gain profit?"
Obviously a business' goal is to gain profit and get ahead of the competition but if government around the world are making these new eco policies then how will they compete?
You bring up an interesting point that China among other emerging markets has very little regulation. I think this is wrong and we should take action such as through tariffs. We are losing out to China and others because they are not complying with environmental regulation. It is shameful to allow them leadership roles in supranational organizations when they set such a poor example. The are the "bottom" in the "race to the bottom theory". They simply attract business by offering the lowest possible standards in regulation. I feel like in a globalized economy everything will need to converge such as wages and prices. Currency included should converge eventually. Regulations need to affect countries equally.
ReplyDeleteI feel like more environmental groups will form in the future. In "Saving the Planet" it makes the point that businesses themselves may start self-regulating themselves. I feel like the government should offer vouchers and subsidies to help these businessed go green.
I find it frightening that the United States has not signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. We really could be improving the environment and at least get on the international political scene about global warming, I thought that after Obama took office it would be more likely. I agree that often in can be in the best interest of both non-profit and business to work together as it does with the MWC.
ReplyDeleteWhile I feel like China should be able to conduct its own domestic policy I feel like it is important that they create a more environmentally sound agenda. Really the crux of the matter is the fact that historically they have not polluted nearly as much as industrialized countries and therefore should be afforded a more relaxed transition into environmental sustainability. Another problem is their extreme reliance on coal which is right now one of their booming domestic industries. It would be disingenous businessly for them to cut out coal altogether and would hurt them tremendously in an economic sense. While I feel like they should be nudged more towards environmental sustainability I feel like they do not have the capacity, primarily because of their dependency on coal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm
Businesses already have to follow laws and guidelines issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the past few days, businesses have taken a stance against new EPA regulations saying that the new rules are placing even greater burdens on the economy. So far, the Obama administration has defended the EPA's new regulations concerning the level of carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. Businesses fear that newly required (and often expensive) technology for power plants, factories, and refineries could drive up energy costs for all businesses (WSJ.com). In turn, these costs will be placed on the consumer. In conclusion, new environmental regulations stem from one agenda: to make money. Businesses aren't becoming more "green" simply out of the kindness of their hearts or necessarily by government issuances. Change in consumer attitude and buying preferences guide companies to adopt newer, cleaner procedures. Signing treaties does not guide this change. Since the Kyoto Protocol's adoption 14 years ago, carbon emissions continue to exponentially rise.
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989504576128132645791552.html
In response to your question, I absolutely think that businesses should be obligated to abide by environmental laws and regulations. How successful can a business really be if they are deforesting, pollution, disrupting natural habitats, and pushing people off their land? You mention that a business' goal is to make a profit and get ahead of the competition and I feel that being environmentally friendly is an emerging way to be a step up from your competition. I think a great way for businesses and even corporations to stand out amongst their competitors is by forming alliances with nonprofits. In doing so, they demonstrate that they are making a conscious effort to resolve problems that they possibly helped to create in the first place and (hopefully) intend to operate in a more sustainable manner.The positive impact of environmental nonprofits bringing attention to environmental issues is immense and the more focus that is placed on the role of business in the environmental equation, the more I think their practices will start to change. As you mention, businesses making changes to be more environmentally friendly is better for everyone in the long run.
ReplyDelete