Topic: Garbage Crisis and its impact on Water, Air and Ground Contamination Introduction Air, Water and Ground are part of the Earths Ecosystem that needs to be protected for the benefit of human welfare. There are no boundaries in the Air that we breathe, the water we consume and the ground. Garbage generated in developed countries many a times is transported to developing countries, as it is economically more viable. EPA reported in 2009, that a large percentage of the E Waste from US is exported to Asia and Africa. Within the developing countries, the policies though exist for Waste Management, is many a times not implemented. The developing countries are struggling to manage waste generated within the country. The waste that is imported adds a huge burden onto the already stressed ecosystem. Questions that need to be addressed and analysed on relationship between Waste and Human Welfare -
How do we put a dollar value that needs to be compensated to the Developing Countries by the Developed Countries for the waste that is exported?
-
Do we calculate the number of people whose health is impacted due to the consistent dumping of both Toxic E Waste and General Garbage?
-
What is the carrying capacity of the land where the Garbage dumping occurs before the damage done to the surrounding ecosystem is irreversible?
-
What is the value that people in Developed countries would be willing to pay additionally so that the waste transported is disposed off with least possible Environmental Impact?
-
Can an agency such as EPA perform the required research and economic analysis prior to approval of Toxic Waste being exported to Africa and Asia?
Current Situation The waste that is generated by the cities in developing countries such as India, is sent to landfills in villages around the cities. In more recent times, due to health impacts of continuous dumping of landfill without protocol, there has been mass protests from villagers. This results in garbage lying uncollected for days at a stretch in cities. With advent
of monsoons, the uncovered garbage spreads on to the streets, and ends up in waterbodies and also into the ground. They become areas for breeding of mosquitoes and subsequently spreading of Viral Infections/ Diseases. The Value of Human Health becomes the least denominator in the circle of the garbage crisis. The Value of the Worlds Ecosystem, the air pollution from incineration of garbage, the inflow of garbage in streams and the ground, becomes also the least denominator. Education to Value Nature Awareness programs by the Municipality or the Corporations of the City, on the economic value to the Nature would be key to prevent damage to the ecosystem. Pressure from developed countries on developing countries to ensure the True Value of Worlds Ecosystem is comprehended explicitly as effect on ecosystem in one country can be felt in another country. It is integral for education to happen at a rapid pace and mindset to shift as ‘often importance of ecosystem is widely appreciated only upon their loss.’ (1) Individuals often tend to not understand the change in value of a natural finite commodity with decreasing resources. This ignorance would lead to unsustainable conditions for the future generations. Assigning a Value to the harm on ecosystems through the Systematic Dumping of Waste How do we assign a value to the population affected by the various landfills? How do we assign a value to the water that is contaminated or the ground that is contaminated? How do we put a number to the air pollution? The value to each of the above questions would be infinite. However based on the three readings under the concept of Valuing Nature, the public in India if involved in participatory research through questions, would be ready to pay a small tax to have a task force dedicated to tackling the garbage crisis. International committees on handling of waste in conjunction with National Committee would be key in addressing economic and human welfare issues of one of the largest crisis in the developing countries. Human health in any city is as good as the health of the neighbouring villages, as the spread of diseases through mosquitoes has no boundaries. To summarise, though the value on human health is infinite, a value for basis of introduction of a policy needs to be determined. Resource Conserving against Resource Intensive
Most commodities are material and energy intensive. Natural materials are finite in nature. To conserve the finite stock of material, the waste generated needs to be minimised. For waste to minimised, the longevity of the product and its after life use needs to be determined. If the manufacturing policy is such that their is a minimum life expectancy for the product, and pricing of replacement of a similar product is high, the waste generated would reduce. Consequently the energy consumption, since lesser manufacturing would mean lesser energy consumption. This would require government to analyse the cost benefits to reducing the economics of trade within the country to the value of conserving energy and thus protecting the ecosystem. Is the concept Valuing Nature a useful lens through which to better understand the issue. The concept Valuing Nature is fundamental to Garbage crisis in developing countries. Waste once removed from the cities is not considered as having an environmental impact to the welfare of the occupants in the city. However through this concept it links valuing nature and human welfare. Affecting nature in surrounding areas, can bring about adverse conditions in the city in consideration as well. How would the chosen concept change the way we approach this environmental question? The environmental question of waste generation and disposal has a great impact on nature and thus human welfare. With research economists can assign a dollar value as the finance required to address the issue of waste, so as to minimise effects on the ecosystem and human health. When a value is assigned to the negative effects of waste, it is easier for the public to comprehend the gravity of the situation, and the urgency of the remedial actions that need to be implemented. The value assigned would also ensure corporates and industries to analyse whether they need to relook at their production processes, as the financial implication of paying for the waste may be larger then taking corrective measures in their processes to reduce the waste. Conclusion Converting protection of ecosystem to numbers is only meaningful when it is restricted to a discussion to understand priorities and assigning a relative value of one system against
another. Beyond which, it becomes incoherent as the value of human welfare is always infinite. As mentioned in the article, ‘ The Unnatural Market’, the public needs to understand the Ecosystem as finite commodities. If they did go shopping for Social Values what would they buy ? Would they choose safe jobs, protection from Toxic chemicals, protection of wild life, protection of seas etc. When this is played in the mind of the public, that each is a finite social commodity, the bridge between human welfare and ecosystem strengthens The value for commodities on the verge of being extinct is always more, and this value ensures greater care to protect the commodity to last longer. This same value will ensure reduction in the waste and lesser burden on waterbodies, air and ground. The relation between Economy, Ecosystem and Public Welfare is complex, and needs further extensive studies so as to put relative values and relationships, to ensure human welfare and health of the ecosystem for generations to come. As mentioned in the article ‘The Value of the World’s Ecosystem’, moral and economic arguments can and should go parallel. References 1. Robert Costanza, Ralph d’Arge, Rudolf de Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limburg, Shahid Naeem, Robert V O Neill, Jose Paruelo, Robert G Raskin, Paul Sutton, Marjan van den Belt, ‘The Value of the Worlds Ecosystem’ Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Zoology Department and Institute of Ecological Economics, University of Maryland 2. Gretchen C Daily, Tore Soderqvist, Sara Aniyar, Kenneth Arrow, Partha Dasgupta, Paul R. Ehrlich, Carl Folke, Ann Mari Jansson, Bengt-Owe Jansson, Nils Kautsky, Simon Levin, Jane Lubchenco, Karl-Goran Maler, David Simpson, David Starrett, David Tilman, Brian Walker. ‘The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value’, Science, New Series, Vol 289, No. 5478, July 21, 2000. 3. ‘Unnatural Markets’