How can we protect crucial resources?

written by Margaret Culver and Hannah Kerby, edited by Abby Renko 

The Public Issues Forum separates the discussion into 3 discussion points: Regulation, Innovation and Culture. The first position focuses on repairing and protecting crucial resources quickly and drastically through organized and government regulations.

Many natural resources on Earth including clean water and rich agricultural land are dwindling quickly. If things continue to progress the way they are now, we will be facing a dim future with limited natural resources. Out of fairness to our future generations and the rest of the world, it is our job to act on this problem and move towards generating solutions.

This position argues that local recycling and reducing waste have gained popularity but are not significantly affecting the rate at which we utilize our natural resources. These proactive measures hold individual importance but are unfortunately not widespread enough to enact real change in our future.  

Though one may think the obvious response to these issues is to advocate immediate and aggressive action today, many drawbacks exist to the entire country becoming more environmentally conscious so quickly. For one, our market could not sustain the entire population converting to renewable energy and eating locally grown food. In fact, only 13% of the nation’s electrical power was generated from renewable energy sources in 2011. It is also simply not feasible for everyone to make the switch over a short period of time.

Creating an organized plan for making significant yet somewhat uncomfortable changes to the way we live presents a plausible solution that could eventually lead to a more sustainable America. These changes would primarily involve the government in an effort to make selection of environmentally sustainable options more affordable for the average citizen.

The costs may seem overwhelming when we begin these efforts, but they will be overshadowed by the immense amount of progress we look forward to seeing in the future. By taking economic measures, we come closest to this ideal future. For example, our government could increase legislation punishing citizens for recreational and unnecessary use of resources; these negative incentives could include stricter and more expensive taxes, surcharges, and fines. If we cannot make citizens see the “good” in reducing their impact, we need to make them see the “bad” that their actions actively contribute to.

Option one recognizes that the cost of our resource use and the amount that we pay for these resources are dramatically disproportionate. Countries such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom all pay much higher gas taxes than we do in order to encourage citizens to carpool or use more environmentally friendly means of transportation.

Another important point to consider is the availability and inexpensiveness of certain resources. For example, water is relatively inexpensive and readily available in America. Lawns and golf courses can be kept lush and green even in the driest of seasons, and citizens can take long showers with little consequences. But do we really need those perfect lawns, and those excessively long showers? What if we put limitations on the use of water in households?

Similarly, gas is available to nearly all citizens. As controversial as it may be, raising gas prices would cause the Unites States as a whole to use less gas and eventually, the price increases would produce positive effects in the future. Other general economic limitations could include rationing the resources citizens are allowed to consume, allotting everyone a minimum amount of electrical-power needed for daily tasks, and punishing those who exceed their personal limit.

A final suggestion encompassed by option one involves encouraging business to join with their competitors and voluntarily adopt industry-wide standards to reduce environmental impact. This would create an incentive for businesses to use resources in a smarter way, and it would lead to accomplishing the necessary impact we desire in terms of sustainability.

Though the majority of these suggestions involve government regulation, utilizing the government to impose such measures on citizens has its drawbacks. The high quality of life and abundance of resources we are used to will inevitably undergo changes. Though everyday luxuries would not cost more money, taxes would rise on currently inexpensive goods, business production costs and prices would rise, and rationing would necessitate a new and different way of living. All in all, the outcome is up to us. Are we willing to sacrifice some things in the short term for an overall better quality of life in the long term? The choice is up to you.

Remember to join us on Wednesday, Feb 27 and Thursday, Feb 28 at Webster's to join in this public deliberation.