Suppose that the governmental authorities wished to decrease use of a pesticide that is leaching into groundwater supplies in a watershed by 60% from current use levels. Discuss the advantages and/or disadvantages of distributing marketable pesticide permits to each farm operating in the watershed equal to 40% of its current level of use of that pesticide, versus simply ordering each farm to reduce pesticide use to 40% of current levels under threat of heavy fines for non-compliance.
Draw up a costs/benefits table for each option
Think about your reaction to being ordered to use less on threat of penalty.
What would your reaction be to being given a permit.. would you think the government understands your position better?
In which the human or environmental problem impacts on the community.
Anonymous, if your post has nothing to do with THIS post, you need to ask it separately. Look above for "Post a New Question."
Sra
To analyze the advantages and disadvantages of distributing marketable pesticide permits versus ordering each farm to reduce pesticide use, let's break down the two approaches:
1. Distributing Marketable Pesticide Permits:
- Advantages:
a) Flexibility: By distributing marketable permits, farms have the flexibility to choose whether or not to reduce their pesticide use. This allows farms that are willing and capable of making more significant reductions to do so voluntarily.
b) Incentives for innovation: The marketable permits create a market for pesticide reduction efforts, encouraging farms to develop innovative and effective ways to decrease pesticide use, potentially leading to technological advancements.
c) Financial benefits: Farms that successfully reduce their pesticide usage below the designated threshold can sell their extra permits to other farms, potentially generating revenue.
- Disadvantages:
a) Market inequality: Farms with larger operations or disposable income may have an advantage in acquiring more permits, potentially leaving smaller farms at a disadvantage.
b) Cost effectiveness: The effectiveness of this approach relies on the assumption that the market will assign a reasonable price to permits that reflects the social cost of pesticide pollution. If the market price does not align with the environmental impact, the desired reduction may not be achieved.
c) Administrative complexity: A permit system requires a robust regulatory structure to enforce compliance, track permits, and ensure transparency in the marketplace.
2. Ordering each farm to reduce pesticide use under threat of heavy fines:
- Advantages:
a) Simplicity: This approach is straightforward and easy to understand. Farms are given a clear mandate to reduce pesticide use to a specific level.
b) Strong incentives: Imposing heavy fines provides a strong incentive for farms to comply with the reduction requirements, as non-compliance can result in substantial financial penalties.
- Disadvantages:
a) Lack of flexibility: By mandating a specific reduction level for all farms, it may not account for variations in farm operations, capabilities, or existing reduction efforts. Some farms may face challenges in implementing the necessary changes within the required time frame.
b) Resentment and non-compliance: Heavy fines may generate resistance and non-compliance, especially if farms feel the reduction targets are unrealistic or unfair. This could lead to prolonged legal battles and delays in achieving the desired reduction levels.
c) Potential unintended consequences: Farms may resort to alternative, potentially riskier, pest control methods if they face significant cost burdens or if the reduction targets are unattainable.
Ultimately, the choice between distributing marketable permits and imposing fines depends on various factors, including the size and diversity of farms in the watershed, the level of cooperation anticipated, administrative capacity, and economic considerations. A combination of both approaches might be a possible solution to mitigate their respective disadvantages while taking advantage of their benefits.