Blog 6 - - - Section 33

At the Shrine

Environmental actions have many factors to consider; using just an economic evaluation is ineffective and requires a more detailed understanding. Too often consumer approaches are taken only regarding the economical value of a situation, and only be become problem when resources located on a piece of land become redistricted, showing that current decisions are based around market value and not natural and environmental values. Land is a commodity, changing it in to a monetary value, ignoring ecological equals. Problems arise when people don’t consider themselves consumers, but view themselves as citizen. People enjoy supporting environmental actions as a community, but rarely do little on a personal level to help the cause. Many people will vote for a carbon tax, but continue to drive inefficient cars, or disapprove the use of harmful chemicals and still use phosphorous cleaning agents. Some recent changes in decision making, has instated the use of the Cost-Benefit analysis. This helps bring economic goals down from the spot light, and uses a more rounded approach to consider apparent regulations, infused with more aesthetics and morals. When determining safety compared to efficient using this kind of model, it tend to fall apart in some ways. People working in dangerous environments become part of the cost-benefit, and in doing so have a price put on there worth. When trying to improve working conditions, arguments have to be made to prove that a safer environment is worth it in the long run. This seem very unfair to the workers, as safer practices are available, but company regulations say it to expensive to make them better. This makes people expendable, and viewed only as a piece of the process. Workings around dangerous chemicals have many unknown long term effect, and not using the safest equipment seem unjust. The really focus should be how safe is the work place, if it cost to much. The cost-benefit analysis tries to improve the decision making process by adding value to equal parties. The downfall is the decision revolves around the people who are financing the decision; still making the overall decision one sided. To improve this attempt of a solution, a neutral part is required to mitigate the arguments, mostly in the form of an economist, and prevent the argument from turning into a money battle. Using this kind of modified decision making process more equal to all parties, as a detailed debate can determine, on all factors. Using this approach also disallows the market from taking charge, and using demand to strong arming a decision. The throughout solutions can provide the best, positive, safe, and aesthetic solution.

I think it is the work places responsibility to proved the safest environment as technologically possible, dependent not on money, but the chemical being used in production. Since many chemical lack long term testing, putting low values on workers is unfair when making decisions. If the cost-benefit analysis is going to be used, and long term effects of the chemicals cannot, or have not been proven yet, workers health should be priceless. Using a high value for life on the job will greatly reduce the amount of cancer causing agents exposed while processing. Applying this thinking to land decisions can be quite similar. Until the effects of a chemical can be proven, land should also be viewed as priceless. Natural environments only happen once, if there destroyed, they eventually disappear, along with their vital functions that we depend on.