You must have heard of the Polluter Pays Principle, but have you considered why the long histories of exploitation -- of mother earth, its natural wealth, and its people -- go unpunished? Why not think of an Exploiter Pays Principle? Read all about it in an Open Access article Jesse Ribot and I published recently. It's hyperlinked via this research spotlight and share your reflections, comments, suggestions, and questions in this discussion. This is extremely important in light of the ongoing discussions about loss and damage and climate reparations. https://www.researchgate.net/spotlight/634c498cb73e995dd408ead5
The exploiter or polluter pay principle is very necessary indeed for minimization of the devastating effects of climate change.
The issue should be much more forcefully addressed by the responsible agency of the United Nations.
The survival of the human race is being highly threatened by evergrowing human-induced pollution.
In Norway, we have something called "ground rent", which certain industries, for example hydropower, have to pay in order to use nature. These days it is being discussed whether fish farming has to pay for the use of the fjords. Fish farming can cause local pollution, and be an obstacle to other use of the sea area. In Norway, fish farming is a large industry, run by large companies. At the same time, they contribute to local jobs. Payment for use of the fjords is therefore disputed.
Arne Andersen Arne, thank you very much for sharing information about application of ground rent to fish farming in fjords. This would be a great example to make a distinction between "Polluter Pays Principle" to "Exploiter Pays Principle" -- Would love to chat more about it if you or someone you know may be interested in writing about it. cc: Harold Chike
Hi Prakash, I came across this article and I feel that it is very timely. I am also drawing on this article in the introduction for an edited volume on climate justice in the majority world. With the shift in focus of climate action from top down to bottom up levels esp in climate justice literature, I feel that there has been a dilution in understanding or even confronting causality and the structural elements. I think it is time to go back to some of the seminal work, for eg, At Risk, Blaikie s and Ben Wisner s work and bring causality back into the conversation. On the other hand the pandemic has also exposed how compounding vulnerabilities are an outcome of historic models of exploitation and why these cannot be ignored. Congratulations on this very important work..
@Harold Chike Here is a case from the Norwegian authorities. The original is in Norwegian, but I hope Google translate has worked: https://www-stortinget-no.translate.goog/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Publikasjoner/Innstillinger/Odelstinget/1995-1996/inno-199596-062/6/?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
A very interesting article and some interesting posts. Indeed polluter pay principle does not cover the entire matter as exploiter pays principle (EPP) seems far more viable, from a historical point of view, but also from social, cultural and political point of view and of course an economic point of view. Please keep up the great research. But also the territorial approach is most interesting as provided by Arne and seemingly connected to EPP.
Indeed and just as an example, if a bottling company is taking water out of a defined area, it needs to pay for this water. However, this payment is currently very under estimated in economic terms, because not only are water prices subsidized for appropriate social reasons, but also this water payment underestimates other 'values'. Extracting water from an area, reduces the value of the area, it reduces, for example ecosystem services, wildlife, wild plants, etc., as well as reduces the value of farming, local communities, real estate, etc. Hence i agree it is good to 'price and cost' from an economic point of view the extractor of water, but priced and cost are one thing, value is another. Hence i think that what needs to be sought is how to estimate the value of water extraction and how this affects the value of society and culture in a particular area where the water is being extracted, for example. Economic valuation is of essence, but also social and cultural values are important.
Thank you immensely @Arne Anderson and Martini Hilmi. Indeed , your contributions may seem to be different, but they actually appear to me to be reinforcing the need to always remember the human factor, whether at a local community level or national level.
While the earlier contributor appears to be more concerned with the national economy , the later contributor appears to be more considerate for local communities at greater risk.
Comprehensively considered, there is need for control of pollution using tax from generated revenues.
Firstly, the local communities at risk have to be compensated. This is a humane issue that should not be ignored.
Secondly, enforcement of polluter tax will minimally affect national income.
Thirdly, survival of human race is imperative. This is key to sustainable development which is a major objective of the United Nations.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology