Governments Responsibility on the Environment

Governments Responsibility on the EnvironmentOur modern days mart system is has put so much attention on its profit that it seems to have forgotten its social responsibility. Because of the increased production by the unalike merchandises and their attempt to keep with the competition, the environment has been very much affected. There atomic number 18 many stories in the newspapers and the news about world(a) warming and other environmental hazards which have been as a result of the increased market productions a good example is the much talked BP oil spill in the deep waters. This not only a show that the market is not careful while producing but it as well as shows that it has no much connect on the environment. This is where the regimen should come in.It is thus true that the todays government has a role to play in regulating and managing the environment we live in because the market system tends to ignore the environmental fallouts that have resulted in global warming is sues. This is because the environment is like a public good which might not belong top someone specifically but is consumed every bit by everybody. Unless there is a strong unity within the firms, thence the environment entrust continue to disintegrate separately day because each firm volition concentrate on maximizing profits at the expense of the environment leaders horizontal to more global warming.Kevin Michael Rudd, is the accredited prime minister in Australia. He is also a attraction of his set outy. According to him, climate change is the greatest moral, economic and social contest of our time. His intention is cut outpouring of green house fluffes by 60% before the year 2050. he signed the Kyoto Protocol immediately afterwards being sworn in as elevation Minister. In declination of the year 2008, he released a paper, commonly known as a White Paper which talked a bout reducing Australias greenhouse gas emissions. The paper talked about putting up an emission trading plot in the year 2010 but this has been delayed to be put up in the year 2011 probably because of the much criticism that it encountered. The emission trading turning away is also the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and it estimated that the emission of green house gases would be less by a take between 5% and 15% in 2020 below the year 2000. Although Rudds government was not able to start an emission trading scheme as planned, it is trying to prove that it can meet its greenhouse gas lessening targets by rushing new energy efficient strategies. According to the Prime Minister, the government has made up its mind to extend the implementation of this scheme up to the year 2012. Despite of this delay, the Prime Minister insisted on the governments affiliatedness to this scheme. He merely brought an impression that if there was slowness in world-wide action, the scheme could either be delayed further or even abandoned. His spokes person said that the government would make the emissions trading scheme part of the legislation by 2013 if the international action is sufficient by then. This publication has brought a lot of debate within the Australian government.There is a ministerial task group which will report in June on the options which include new industrial and building capability measures and an energy efficiency trading scheme. There are also fuel efficiency regulations and keep for clean coal and solar projects but these are in all likelihood to be pre-elections announcements to make it look as if the government is still much committed to stacking with climate change and is also able to meet the reducing aim that it has made an international pledge to. There are however fears that the fight against global warming will have an economic core on many things. First, it is believe that it is probably that there will be more tax on everything. This will lead to increases in the set of meeting the countrys new policies on the environment. This is also considered that it could lead to the sending of a disastrous indication to the waving international climate talks. The country will have to pay a carbon bell in society to meet its target. The public is not ready to pay more to deal with global warming. The concern of the public comes in because it is likely that when the carbon price is introduced to the market, it will be passed to the consumers through high prices for the products. Despite of this, the majority division of the entire population are willing to pay a higher(prenominal) price for power in order to achieve this. The high prices in products could lead to cost push inflation within the country. The government is also likely to spend a lot of money in implementing these policies. This is likely to have a negative effect on economic gain as the changes will bring with them high cost. The high costs will lead to a less production lowering the GDP. In harm of unemployment, it is true that it will rise as a way of deliver on costs by the firms. All these parameters might only be affected in the short run but take a turn in the long term after the initial costs for the entire projects have been met. This means that a positive change is likely to be seen in the future after the implementation. What is important though is the particular that the emission of green house gases will go down leading to a cleaner and safer environment.ReferencesGan, A, King, S, Stonecash, R Mankin, N, 2009, Principles of economics, 4th edn, Cengage LearningJackson, J McIver, R 2007, Macroeconomics, 8th edn, McGraw Hillwww.csiro.au/resources/pfnt.html