Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment? This is a question of social justice. Two popular answers are currently in circulation:
- Those responsible for causing the pollution ought to pay.
- Those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration should pay.
I think both ends of the spectrum will have to participate if we intend on seeing a beneficial change in environmental protection. The side that causes the pollution needs to focus on efforts to better their environmental impact and those who support the protection and restoration should help support the transition of industries, groups and companies who want to leave a better imprint on society. It’s very easy to see where people view the polluters as those to pay the cost of environmental restoration, kind of the ‘you break it, you buy it’ idea. If you destroy something or pollute something important in the environment or an ecosystem, then it’s your responsibility to fix it. On the other hand, it’s very easy to see the viewpoint from the other side, if the environment is something you want to protect and stand up fir, then you should be the one putting in the time, energy and allocating costs to its survival. At this point I think we’re still at the ‘finger pointing’ stage so to speak and while the automatic group to blame is the ones who pollute and harm the environment, in the end I think it come down to both groups participating equally.