POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE
The polluter pays principle (PPP) states,
whoever is responsible for damage to the environment should bear the costs
associated with it.
Polluter pays is also known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). This is a concept that was probably first described by
Thomas Lindhqvist for the Swedish government in 1990. EPR seeks to shift the
responsibility dealing with waste from governments (and thus, taxpayers and
Society at large) to the entities producing it.
EPR internalizes the cost of waste disposal into
the cost of the product. This would force the producers to decrease waste and
increase possibilities for reuse and recycling.
The 'polluters pays' principle is the commonly
accepted practice that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of
managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. For Instance,
a factory that produces a potentially poisonous substance as a byproduct of
its activities is usually held responsible for its safe disposal.
Part of a set of broader principles to guide sustainable
development Worldwide (formally known as the 1992 Rio Declaration), the
Polluter pays principle is applied more specifically to emissions
of greenhouse gases which cause climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions are considered a form
of pollution because they cause potential harm and damage through impacts on
the climate. However, in this case, because society has been slow to recognize
the link between greenhouse gases and climate change, and because the
atmosphere is considered by some to be a 'global commons (that everyone shares
and has a right to use), emitters are generally not held responsible for
controlling this form of pollution.
However, it is possible to implement the
polluter pays principle through the so-called carbon price. Carbon price
imposes a charge on the emission of greenhouse gases equivalent to the
corresponding potential cost or damage caused through future climate change. In
this way, a financial incentive is created for a factory, for instance, to
minimize its costs by reducing emissions.
Many economists argue a carbon price should be
global and uniform across countries and sectors so that polluters do not simply
move operations to so-called 'pollution havens' – countries where a lack of environmental
regulation allows them to continue to pollute without restrictions.
Few people could disagree with the proposition
that those who cause damage or harm to others should "pay" for those
damages. It appeals directly to our sense of justice.
Forcing polluters to bear the costs of their
activities is also said to enhance economic efficiency. Appropriately applied,
policies based on a polluter pays principle (PPP) should enable us to protect the environment without
sacrificing the efficiency of a free market economic system.
The polluter pays principle needs to answer four questions:
1. What constitutes pollution?
A. correct interpretation of the polluter pays principle would
define pollution as any byproduct of a production or consumption process that
harms or otherwise violates the property rights of others.
2. Who are the polluters?
The polluter would be the person, company, or
other organization whose activities are generating that by-product. For
instance, the polluter can be the organizations that are responsible for
damaging the environment – in cases such as gas/oil leaks.
3. How much must the polluters pay?
The amount of payment should equal the damage or
potential damage. For instance, oil spills can create current as well as
potential damage to the marine resources.
In November 2012, British Petroleum agreed to
pay US$4.5 billion (1 billion = 1000 million) to the US government as
compensation for the 2010 Deep water Horizon oil spill. The London-based oil
giant pled guilty to 11 felony counts relating to the deaths of 11 men who were
killed in the explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The payout sets a new record in
criminal fines.
4. To whom they must make the payment?
The payment for the damage is to be made to the
person or persons being harmed. For instance, the payment of damage could be
made to the Govt. Since it is the responsibility of the Govt. to take care of
affected persons, and to repair the damage.
I am working for the website and giving out my best of efforts to provide the viewers of the website a richest source of accurate information to guide in the difficulties of life face by a common people to learn some thing.the author is enthusiastic about its viewers that they get the information for what they visited this webpage
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon