If, due to the current energy crisis, the local government lifts anti-smog restrictions, reauthorizes the burning of brown coal and waste in stoves, and thereby contributes to the deterioration of air quality, are they acting anti-socially towards the residents of the municipality?
In the context of the ignorance realized in recent years towards the beginning of the climate crisis, towards the progressive process of global warming, the negligence committed in previous years in the development of renewable energy sources and the energy crisis that is currently developing, in the country where I operate the local government is lifting anti-smog restrictions and worsening air quality is it acting anti-socially towards the residents of the municipality. These actions are in complete contradiction with the issue of achieving the goals of sustainable development, with the strategy of a pro-environmental and pro-climate economy, with the principles of green transformation of the economy, with the principles of social responsibility of the activities of public institutions, with the ethics of the standards of a public institution acting for the benefit of citizens and residents of the municipality, with the implementation of pro-social functions of public institutions, etc. In such a situation, in which local governments acting in concert with the central authorities of the state ignore the pro-social goals and principles for which they were established and for which they function, they knowingly contribute to the deterioration of the local climate and environment, deterioration of air quality and deterioration of health. In such a situation, are the next local elections and the possibility of changing the authorities only during these elections a sufficient instrument for expressing one's opinion, one's dissatisfaction with the municipal, socio-economic, environmental, climate, cultural, etc. policies pursued by local authorities? Can the activities of non-governmental organizations, associations and other organizations established from the bottom up by citizens, through which citizens point out the shortcomings and errors committed by local authorities in the framework of the municipal, socio-economic, environmental, climate, cultural policies carried out, be of great help in this regard? A particularly important problem that fosters the development of this kind of anti-social activity of local municipal authorities is, among other things, political connections with the central authorities, which implement analogous socio-economic policies with ignoring climate issues, environmental issues, sustainable development, the need to efficiently and urgently carry out a green transformation of the economy. A fundamental issue in the context of the above-described problem may be the question of political independence of local self-government authorities vis-à-vis the apparatus of the central government of the state in order to maintain high standards of care for the local community, real opportunities for pro-social activities, listening to the needs of the local community of municipal residents and the implementation of pro-social functions by local self-government authorities.
In the context of the issues outlined above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:
If, due to the current energy crisis, local authorities lift anti-smog restrictions, once again allow the burning of brown coal and waste in stoves, and thus contribute to the deterioration of air quality, are they acting anti-socially towards the residents of the municipality?
What is your opinion on this topic?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Warm regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Yes, they are acting anti-socially if they are lifting anti-smog restrictions and worsening air quality. Poor air quality can have serious health consequences for residents of the municipality, including increased risk of respiratory illnesses and other health problems. By lifting the restrictions, local governments are putting their citizens at risk and disregarding the health and well-being of the population.
I don't think so. Not every region in the world is economically developed, and poor regions that want to develop their economy will certainly cause damage to the environment. I believe that poor countries should be given more lenient conditions for development, rather than being considered anti-social just because of air pollution.
In my view a local government or authority are elected, appointed or established for various purposes and hold various responsibilities. The term anti-social to describe an action of relaxing or removing restrictions on air quality doesn’t sit well with me to describe this. Someone smoking a cigarette amongst a group of non-smokers may be considered anti-social but the owner of a licensed establishment who has decided to remove no smoking condition for the patrons is not exactly being anti-social.
The question should really be whether the government is being negligent in its decision to lift restrictions, which were likely established to create a healthier environment.
When considering the focus of this issue relates to an energy crisis perhaps attention should be shifted towards finding alternative solutions than to simply consider reverting to options which possess obvious risks.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Ornithology