We have forgotten “the hard-learned lesson that how you get someplace is as important as getting there” (Berkebile, McLennan, 1999). So, what needs to be done? Well, for one, there is a need to overhaul the entire environmental movement. “Environmentalist can turn things around if they can rethink their priorities and craft more coherent, consistent, morally compelling ways of addressing our environmental plight” (Freyfogle, 2005). Maybe this way more people can understand exactly what the world is facing and what needs to be done about it, to help people to get excited about doing what is morally right in regards to the environment.
Roger Scholfield was opened to new ways to promote his business but he did not want to risk his company, promoting an impractical vehicle to the regular consumer, but offering the vechicle to corporate and his fleet in the community he started a good line of going green. 3. Should the government regulate companies’ claims that their products are green? Should official classifications for environmental friendliness be defined? Yes, It's the great importante for many company to minimise the impact that their products have on the environment ,but it's totally unacceptable for companies to make false claims.
The “precautionary principle” (hereafter referred to as the PP), analogous to the folk wisdom of “better safe than sorry”, argues that occasionally scientific certainty of a harmful effect is not required before taking preventive measures. The principle has gained momentum in recent decades, particularly for environmental policy, being invoked in such important documents as the 1969 Swedish Environmental Protection Act or the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. While it has been lauded by some as offering a much-needed alternative to orthodox approaches to environmental management, others have criticised it as being vacuous or even harmful. I will argue that the PP cannot be a seen as a guide to environmental policymaking in the sense that it cannot be a decision-making principle because it is a contested concept, but that it can be a useful epistemic framework for encouraging reforms as its value and usefulness lie not in providing clarity, but in challenging the status quo by sparking controversy and a consultative process. The non-existence of an overarching definition of the Precautionary Principle Most of the criticisms mentioned above refer to the PP as if there was only one version of it; however there are currently about 19 different versions of it in treaties, academic writings and laws (Sandin 1999).
Recycling Should Be Mandatory Non-biodegradable waste poses a great challenge to environment conservation efforts. This is simply because this kind of waste does not decompose naturally leaving profound effects on the environment. The lack of a proper disposal mechanism puts the world at a poor position in as far as environment conservation is concerned. This calls for government intervention through regulations to revamp the campaign for both the preservation and conservation of Mother Nature. Disposal techniques such as burning and using dumpsites only push the environment further down the drain (Logomasini, 1); since such waste disposal methods bring about environmental concerns as well.
Environmentalist believed that the world was in jeopardy whereas “anti-environmentalist believed that no matter the environmental effect, social and economic health and progress were necessary for people and civilization to prosper” (Botkin & Keller, 2011, Ch. 1). Ultimately, this movement helped make the environment just as important as social and political issues. It has also help open many eyes in regard to finding ways of addressing, solving, and managing the environment and its issues. 2.
In the compulsory licensing issue, who is right, Brazil or Merck? Considering the outcome for both parties in the given case, it is hard to answer the question “who is right, Brazil or Meck?” Personally, I’d support the decision of Brazil in given circumstances however this does not mean that they did well during negotiations with Merck. It was very strategic for Brasil to allign their IP law with TRIPS. This established compulsory licensing policies which were put in place in order to avoid any abusement of rights by patent holders in pharmaceuticals and also to make sure that government could control the mechanism in case of public interest or emergencies. Despite some conditions given, it was still uncertain how exactly “public interest “ would be decided or interpreted.
Hence, simple manners such as putting the garbage into the bins or classifying them into categories are highly evaluated as the contribution to reduce environmental devastation. In addition, when people are aware of importance of the natural environment, it might become motivation in helping the government struggle against illegal activities related to the violation of environmental protection. It will appear to be an increasing number of demonstrations of the purpose of protecting the environment, originating from building up awareness of environment for people. Moreover, it might be a great recovery when individuals voice their disagreement with every act of environment sabotage. From things mentioned above, without assistance coming from individuals, it is undoubtedly impossible for only the government to solve environmental problems.
Environmental law requires a concern for the nation's resources, knowledge of where the resources are, what they are used for, how and why they may be endangered, damaged, or exploited. Environmental law also requires a concern for those whose job it is to protect them (Vig 120). Environmental lawyers may work alone or in a group. Environmental lawyers working singularly or on a team have a job, which is to prosecute offenders and find a solution to the offending situation. On the other side of things, environmental lawyers may represent the "offenders" to prove why the exploitation is not bad or is not what it seems to be.
But, to what extend are we doing that? If not, should the government interfere? In order to be able to answer to this question we must go through some relevant arguments and facts. There are numerous environmental measures that can be related to recycle. However, we will focus on few of them and particularly to the practical benefits of recycling for each
It stands to reason however, that anyone’s position on a matter is subject to challenge or criticism. Taking this into consideration I will explore Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism and it’s potential to challenge my thesis on our moral obligation to the environment. While I find the anthropocentric view selfish in nature, it can be used to great effect to justify my claim. Anthropocentrism puts forward the claim that humans are at the centre of nature, and in order to sustain our existence and continue to advance, every living thing and resource exists solely to serve that purpose (Cochrane, 2007). Yet this does not imply that we should mine every mineral and strip every tree, for if we were to consume and take every resource to meet the demands of our ever advancing and growing civilisation, the planet would be devoid of all resources that humanity cannot exist without.