It is no secret that the
environment we live in today is changing for the worse, and something needs to
be done about it. The relationship between governing bodies and the way we as a
population interact with the environment is crucial in ensuring that we do not
destroy our environment. In Thomas Dietz’s “The Struggle to Govern the Commons”
he makes the case that without a strict governing body with a set of rules
watching over how we interact with our environment than we will over use our
natural resources and degrade the world we live in. I agree with this notion
very much for without a set of guidelines monitoring pollution, fishing, and
deforestation these things would run rampant.
Looking at ecosystems in Maine, an example
proposed by Dietz, they are a prime example of where regulation promotes a
healthy and preserved ecosystem while deregulation of these fisheries leads to
an ecosystem breakdown. The inshore ground fisheries are operated by a set of
loose guidelines not stemming form any credible source. Therefore overfishing
is abundant for higher profits are on the minds of the fishermen and a complete
degradation of the inshore fishery grounds. This is a complete contrast to the
lobster fisheries. They are bound to a strict set of guidelines that fisherman
must follow. The resulting affect is an ecosystem that is able to handle the
amount of fishing and still thrive. This highlights how in a situation without
a governing body the leading affect is positive. This example can undoubtedly
be used as a metaphor for many other industries. Pollution and deforestation
are both industries that must be monitored by a governing body for without one
their damage to the environment would be too great. But with a set of strict
rules they can be monitored to the point of keeping a safe environment. By
looking at a numerous number of industries and how they interact with the
environment it is clear that it is best to have a governing body in order to monitor
their harmful affects on the environment.
I agree that without proper supervision, the world's natural resources can easily be taken advantage of. People tend to behave unethically when they know that their actions are not being monitored. Therefore, even minimal monitoring will help this problem of the tragedy of the commons.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jordan that monitoring will help mitigate problems that come as a result of tragedy of the commons. Who would be in charge of allocating resources toward these environmental goals and implementing global standards for pollution, deforestation, and fishing, though? One of the greatest problems with implementing these national standards is the fact that environmental degradation and economic prosperity tend to go hand in hand in today's economy. Because states exist in anarchy and are competing with one another it is hard for an individual state to put aside their economic goals for a better environmental outcome. How do you think states could go about cooperating and collaborating to assuage their collective environmental footprint?
ReplyDeleteShiran raises a valid concern and argument. The competitive nature of states is a factor which only fuels the need for growth, expansion, and economic prosperity in a state -- all of which can ultimately lead to environmental abuse. While it would be easy for developed states such as the USA and those of Western Europe to condemn the practices of countries in the process of developing and expanding, do MDC's really have the authority to intervene in the resource use of another country? As we exist in a system of anarchy, this issue poses a series of questions which undermine and unravel the bonds of the international system and the legitimacy of resource ownership.
DeleteI agree with both Sarah and Shiran here. Because many activities that prove to be economically prosperous tend to degrade the environment, many countries, especially those developing countries as Sarah stated, need to be shown ways that will still be economically prosperous yet not degrading to the environment. I think this is where a governing body, as you said, can be helpful in this type of regulation.
DeleteI think you make a good argument about how having a governing body regulating the commons will promote a healthy and preserved ecosystem. I do think that regulation is better for the environment then deregulation, but are there necessarily enough regulations in place at current that we are helping the ecosystem rather then hurting it? We are still seeing the destruction of forests, loss of biodiversity, etc.
ReplyDeleteI agree that these industries must be monitored to counteract this unethical behavior and keep the environment safe, however how do you expect them to monitor them (taxes, permits, etc.)?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your point of view on the tragedy of the commons as people will always strive to take advantage of anything if unmonitored, and this leads to problems because people don't foresee the future when they do so; so i agree with what you proposed and many have agreed upon how it would work best if such a commons was supervised by a governing body. In theory that sounds like a great idea but just as @sam has said, how would it be monitored exactly and how would it be insured that it's actually being monitored and not just being exploited in a different way.
ReplyDelete