My Rookie Pieces 4 Preservation of Environment
From a prospective of Goverment-Citizen Relation
Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government
In speaker’s view, preserving the natural environment is undisputedly duty of each individual person, in other words, the preservation of natural environment has nothing to do with the government. I can by no means agree with the speaker’s viewpoint as I trust that environmental preservation is the obligation for both parts of society. Since any citizen knows that he or she is liable to preserve environment as he/she could, however, what de facto matters is, whether the liability isn’t correlated to government. From a macroscopical prospective, environmental issue always involves some problems that related to manufacture, regulation, legislation and so on, and which require the government to put their best foot forward.
(While nearly everyone would agree in principle that certain efforts to preserve the natural environment are in humankind’s best interest, environmental issues always involve a tug of war among conflicting political and economic interests. For this reason, and because serious environmental problems are generally large in scale, government participation is needed to ensure environmental preservation.)
Uncountable cases reflect an axiom that individual always tends to care for his own interests rather than that of public. For instance, some chemical producers in Chinese rural part often pour their pollutant immediately to the river instead of refraining them in some improved process. Similarly, for controlling cost, neither manufactures nor consumers of automobile are willing to ameliorate the emission-cleaning system. Only the government has the power to legislate to regulate such actions that are totally damage to environment.
(Experience tells us that individuals (and private corporations owned by individuals) tend to act on behalf of their own short-term economic and political interest, not on behalf of the environment or the public at large. For example, current technology makes possible the complete elimination of polluting emissions from automobiles. Nevertheless, neither automobile manufacturers nor consumers are willing or able to voluntarily make the short-term sacrifices necessary to accomplish this goal. Only the government holds the regulatory and enforcement power to impose the necessary standards and to ensure that we achieve such goals.)
Put the controversy about legislation aside, not a few of environmental problem are interrelated to issues of public-health, which involving the epidemic, food security, sanitation etc. However, these problems are next to impossible to be resolved if which simply rely on each individual. (Aside from the problems of self-interest and enforcement, environmental issues inherently involve public health and are far too pandemic in nature for individuals to solve on their own.) Therefore, the participation and effort of government in these issues is indispensable to public health. (Many of the most egregious environmental violations traverse state and sometimes national borders. Environmental hazards are akin to those involving food and drug safety and to protecting borders against enemies; individuals have neither the power nor the resources to address these widespread hazards.)
In the final analysis, the authority and power possessed by the government ensures a productive solution to environmental problems, simultaneously, the contribution of each individual to the environmental preservation is crucially essential.
(only the authority and scope of power that a government possesses can ensure the attainment of agreed-upon environmental goals. Because individuals are incapable of assuming this responsibility, government must do so.)





