#3

3 September 2011

TWC Lesson 3

and the plot thickens.

The first part of today's lesson was about sustainable development. We watched a portion of a video that really made me think about how we are handling the finite resources that we have. What the video suggests was that a linear method was not possible in this world and I do agree with this statement. There is indeed a need to rethink the way we operate. After all, isn't there this particular saying that "what goes around goes around". Thus, I am for the stand that there is a need to plan our actions in a cyclical way and consider what kind of consequences there are as a result of our current actions.

One question that came up during the discussion was whether sustainable development is just a passing fad and one classmate mentioned that he thinks this is indeed true with regards to businesses. I thought about this question and came to a similar conclusion.

Companies attempt to contribute to sustainable development by adopting environmentally friendly practices as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR). However, their motives for doing so may not be purely for the good of the environment. One article I read sometime back mentioned that such CSR practices enable companies to jack up their prices due to the higher costs involved, and the higher prices will still remain acceptable to the people who support their 'noble cause' resulting in customer loyalty and retained earnings. However, today's lesson made me think further about such business decisions. If such practices have an adverse impact on revenue earnings (after all, price is still the most important factor for most consumers), would businesses still adopt practices that contribute to sustainable development at the expense of their own profitability? I would think that for most, if not all, the answer would be a no. I mean, one can hardly fault them as they have shareholders and stakeholders to be accountable to. Thus, I do agree that sustainable development appears to be that of a passing fad for companies.

Prof mentioned in class that President Obama will stop a clean-air regulation that aimed to reduce health-threatening smog, yielding to bitterly protesting businesses and congressional Republicans who complained the rule would kill jobs in America's ailing economy. I feel that this is a really worrying situation. And an ironic one at that, since without such a regulation, sure jobs wouldn't be killed but perhaps lives would be. If they could focus on green technology, I am sure that jobs will be created! And it would not be at the expense of sustainable development.

I feel that tradeable pollution permits are a good way of reducing pollution. It is whereby the government sets a limit on the amount of pollution which firms can discharge and firms are then issued with permits which they can trade. A firm which can reduce its pollution below the permitted level can sell some of its emission rights to firms which have high pollution levels. Permits will reduce the overall pollution levels because the low polluting firms will have lower costs than firms that have to buy pollution permits. This will give the low polluting firms a competitive advantage and is likely to drive some of the high polluting firms out of business. This will provide firms with financial incentive to reduce pollution thought it must be admitted that there is the possibility that the system may not reduce pollution but merely change its source.

I also went to read up more about the Love Canal incident and such negligence is really shocking. So many residents and babies were affected due to how the waste was not properly disposed of. A survey conducted by the Love Canal Homeowners Association found that 56% of the children born from 1974-1978 had at least one birth defect. A simple mental calculation led me to realize that these children are only, at most 37 years old now; they are still suffering the repercussions of the negligence. Its really heartbreaking upon this realization that the normal lives they could have led have been robbed from them.

One interesting presentation in class today was about Masdar City- a fully green city that focuses on sustainability. It is a fascinating concept and I do hope that the city would indeed be able to function as a proper city because perhaps then other countries could see the strengths and the feasibility of adopting renewable sources of energy , and follow by example.

So I guess the ultimate question that I will takeaway from this lesson is, "Can we create a win-win thinking?" It really boils down to the same problem as I've mentioned in my previous post of how we are always looking after own interest, a 'each man for himself' mentality. If we just focus on a common interest instead of our own personal interest, perhaps we can finally look forward to being on the right road to achieving sustainable development.

I rate this session a 8/10 because I thought that it really made me rethink about the consequences of our actions and where we are headed in the future. An informative session on the whole!