Private sector and community working hand in hand?

I have to make it known that some of my posts, including this post are adopted from my free response writing essays for another module, Green Capitalism.

This post is a response to this article: Renewing the Penobscot

Summary of the Article:
There are many damns built along the river in Penobscot, which resulted in a series of social and environmental problems, upsetting different parties including the locals and environmentalists. Then come along this guy named Scott who managed to bridge the gap between the hydroelectric company and the community.

Scott's story in Penobscot was a beautiful one. It shows that people with different interests can actually come together to help resolve socio-environmental issues proving positive changes possible - as long as the people are determined to make it work. In this case, asking a hydroelectric company to shut down her dam seems like an impossible idea. Yet the team managed to come to a consensus that the dam is to be removed, and the firm was agreeable as there were series of modest energy enhancements to sustain the firm’s generating capacity. It was a beautiful story with a great outcome in which all stakeholders benefitted eventually.

Yet the undeniable truth is that these are anomalies.

As technology advances, mankind are less and less dependent on the natural environment for sustenance. For instance, fossil fuels are finite and decreasing at an appalling rate. Governments are looking for alternatives to provide for energy but are spoilt for choices as there are so many different means of energy generation today. The worry that our future generations will not have sufficient resources can be easily resolved with technological innovation. The bigger issue is, will everyone be able to get access to the technology, or will some be left behind?

The problem lies in the fact that these producers choose to turn a blind eye to the environmental and social consequences and risks associated with these economic activities, which stems from outsourcing. Most developed countries have stringent environmental laws in place, policies to protect the well-being of the people hence it is very troublesome and expensive for production of certain goods in their home countries. This resulted in a shift of pollutive industries to cheaper alternatives with lesser red tape, generating more pollution than before.

The simple underlying problem is that the pollutants are not directly affecting the people running these firms. If the stakeholders of a chemical plant were to live in the vicinity of the plant, the plant is sure to produce minimal polluted air, process its waste properly and ensure that the plant would not blow up. The truth is, these stakeholders are probably across the globe in the comforts of their home, wondering how to further reduce cost of production, especially if outsourced to places with lenient rules and regulations in place. Firms generally are purposefully oblivious to these issues.

Hence I was greatly moved by Penobscot’s success in making things work. Not many firms would be willing to take this step, knowing that there could be economic losses but still invested time and money to hear the community out, and even benefitted from it eventually. Even though it was a small step towards saving the environment, it is a significant one which marks the start of Penobscot’s journey to saving their environment.