The first problem to be addressed is deciding which type of management system to use for a particular type of resource. Obviously a one-size-fits-all environmental policy will not suffice on a national level. The main types of management systems that we should consider implementing include state-centered, community centered, market oriented, or a combination of any or all of these.

It seems reasonable to conclude that delegation of environmental policy should be set on a local level, or community centered, and there is reason to believe that often it should. For issues such as landfill management, local watersheds, etc. which do not stretch past the boundaries of the community, I would suggest leaving decisions up to members of the particular community affected, with some forthcoming exceptions. Clearly, in the United States, any time it is feasible for citizens to make decisions affec

It has been conclusively shown that people with smaller incomes have less political power. This is either because they do not have time to become politically active or their representatives do not feel that they are important. Therefore, it is much easier for companies to make decisions inconsistent with environmental protection in poorer areas. This is why you see a power plant being built in Sumas instead of the outskirts of Bellevue. The citizens of Bellevue could easily block construction of the facility that the people of Sumas are trying to stop because of their financial (and therefore political) resources.

In sum, my suggestion to policy-makers is to focus on bringing as much control as possible to local communities, as their local knowledge and input of a particular resource is highly valuable. When this is not feasible because of the reasons noted before, a state-management system is to be employed. I would strongly urge officials to resist the temptation to turn over significant resources to the private sector. As we have seen, the valuation of both the costs and the benefits from environmental degradation are often not accurate, depending on the analysis used to measure them. When taking social and environmental costs into account, it is clear that privatization of resources should be used as a last resort.

Even if the firm or person decides the continue to operate in the same place for a long period of time, often a significant amount of the costs or not borne by the polluter, resulting in what are known as externalities. For each unit of production, there is a cost and a benefit. Production will continue until benefits equal costs. However, if the polluter is not bearing all of the costs, an inefficient amount of pollution will be created, as is demonstrated in the graph below:

Economists feel that the most efficient place to build these types of plants are in poorer areas because of their willingness to accept compensation is much higher. That is, to build a plant on the outskirts of Bellevue would require either the company or the government to compensate those citizens much more than the citizens of Sumas because people in Bellevue can pay more to have their air clean. Therefore, the overall cost of building a plant in Sumas is cheaper. This may be true, but I feel like there is an overriding ethical condition baring exposure to hazardous material or pollution to people simply because their income renders them politically less forceful. I regard both the environment as well as individual ci

Some topics in this essay:
Jharkhand India”, EPA United, According Hunter, Critical Resources”, , Cambridge University, market based, environmental resources, local communities, David Hunter, based policies, management system, market based policies, management systems, based management, environmental degradation, market policies, market oriented, market based management, set local level, solving particular environmental, command control policies,