which affects a nation's environmental impact the most: political leadership, industry standards, or citizens?

Question

which of these three will have the greatest impact on a nation's physical environment: the policies of the national government, the practices of the business and industrial communities, or the everyday comings and goings of joe and jane six pack? which is easiest to 'change' if needed?

how does the size of the nation affect the answer?
how does the history of the nation affect the answer?

Answer 1

Good question. Here's my opinion, I'll take each aspect in turn...

Political Leadership
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Has the power to impose legislation and force industry and people to reduce their emissions but such measures can be met be resistance. If a multi-party approach is adopted which is seen to be responding to the wishes of the electorate then it is more likely to succeed. Such a system is in place in the UK (where I am). Here, every political party (there's dozens of them all told) is in agreement that we need to tackle the most pressing environmental issues and as such government policies tend to have the backing of the opposition parties as well. Most measures implemented so far have been generally well accepted and opinion polls show the public has an overall positive view on the way politicians are addressing environmental concerns.

There is in the UK something of a balance, there are both financial penalties and rewards for those who implement environmental improvements and provided a sort of status quo is maintained then political leadership can play an important role. However, it relies on the support of both businesses and citizens and as such these are more important than the politics.

Industry Standards
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
By and large businesses serve the public, they adapt to meet changing public demands and perceptions. Few businesses are going to implement changes unless there's some positive benefit in it for them. In places like Europe and Japan businesses have made substantial improvements in their environmental policies, not because they had to or necessarily even wanted to but because of the law of supply and demand. The public are demanding greener goods and services and if businesses are to retain their position in a competitive market they need to adapt to meet new demands. As such the drivers of industrial practices are primarily the ordinary citizens.

Citizens
¯¯¯¯¯¯
Without the will of the citizens politicians and businesses fail. Ultimately it's the citizens that hold they key to enforce successful and acceptable change. Humans are generally reluctant to change, you only have to look at the reactions of people when some new policy or other is announced. Even if the policy is beneficial it will meet a great deal of resistance.

So whilst the balance of power is in the hands of citizens they have to want to implement changes and they're only really going to do so if there's a perceived benefit to be gained.

In order for there to be a perceived benefit they have to be aware of it and so, in my opinion, it comes down to a matter of education more than anything else. Give the people the facts, show them the positives and negatives, let them make up their collective minds and the politicians and businesses can act accordingly.

Size and history of the nation
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Don't think it matters so much. More important is the willingness of a nation to embrace change and as such those that are forward looking will do better.

Answer 2

The three certainly interact, but of the three I would pick the citizens. I am not talking just about behaviour but the mood of people and sometimes organised protest. Both politicians and industry have to take note of this, the public are powerful if riled. Certainly politicians can help, but they have to be careful they carry the public with them. It is very easy to see situations developing where groups of citizens gather to effectively cause disruption as happened in the UK over petrol taxes some years ago. It is easiest to change politicians. Politicians being lawmakers can do a lot to regulate industries and businesses. Good companies have the expertise to analyse these problems and can be proactive in anticipating what it means to them in the future and act early.

Large countries tend to be more diverse, and more complex for government to manage and perhaps tend to be slower in altering course but I wouldn't say this is necessarily a rigid rule. The impact of history is a very complex matter and how it affects a nations environmental impact. The UK is a very crowded smallish island which relies a lot on international influence, past and present, for its sense of pride. The establishment is strong and has taken a united and unequivocal position on global warming as has most of Europe and Japan. The US has a history perhaps of leaving its citizens more alone and of smaller government impact on their lives. The average person has a much larger carbon footprint than anywhere else so there is more to change.

Answer 3

I believe that the influence and power that political leadership yields has a broader impact on our nation's physical environment. They, in effect, already have the citizen's blessings to lead via elections. They have the power to set industrial standards, such as the Clean Air Act, Waterland Act, and control purse strings to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior, OSHA, and Dept. of Energy. They also fund research and development projects via grants to industry, for example the use and practicality of ethanol or hydrogen cell automobiles. They also set standards of recycling and behavioral patterns of the nation. Weak, passive "leadership" or strong, active leadership makes all the difference in the entire world, not just the US.
Great question!

Answer 4

The citizens - because even in a dictatorship they eventually affect the leadership, which can set industrial standards and much else. Even after more than 50 years "Green" activism, much of it unsuccessful, I still believe our only hope really lies with the citizens, and they are most readily changed. A smaller nation, with a history of collectivism is most amenable to change (the Scandinavian countries demonstrate this). But China demonstrates how resolutely a totalitarian regime can effect change when change seems necessary to sustain power (e.g. population control, etc). Large democracies in which politicians cater selectively for discrete interest groups for votes seem least amenable (e.g. USA, Australia) because they cater to lowest common denominator. The EU is ahead on environmental issues because its parliament is separated from the national manipulations, I think. But when Joe and Jane are sufficiently alarmed, we'll see change. Present intrusion of climate change is having an effect. Even industry is now calling for climate responses, recognizing a sustainable physical and social environment is essential to commerce. But the political response may be too little too late while particular mind-sets and interest groups have hold of the levers - e.g. Bush in USA, John Howard in Australia. They can find diversions, like Islamic terrorism! And of course, most of the world's peoples have no access to information, and are preoccupied with irrelevant religious, political, or other personal issues - or immediate survival. So it's down to us, and those we can personally influence.

Answer 5

I would say the last one, although economics are unquestionably important. Poorer people have fewer choices. America with its vast wealth has been the leading polluter and the leading consumer of resources since the industrial revolution began. Now we presume to chastise other nations who are just now industrializing as if we somehow held the moral high ground!

All of those things derive from the people and their individual standards of conduct. I live in a beautiful historic part of America. Yet no matter where you go the landscape is littered with empty beer bottles, fast food wrappers and other waste. What is so hard about cleaning up after oneself?

I remember a man from Germany who visited St. Louis back in the 1970's. (he and my ex-father in law were both Quality Control inspectors for Emerdon electric). He was astonished at the brick buildings, the sewer system, many other things the people who lived there paid little attention to. His comment was "what you people have is better than anybody else in the world, and yet you don't take care of any of it!" He was totally astonished, and wondered why. I'm not sure why myself, but I've lived long enough to know its gotten worse with each generation. Its easy to say it's ignorance, stupidity, arrogance or greed. Today I think more like taking it all for granted, rather than regarding it as the great undeserved gift it truly is.

Answer 6

As with many things you need to look at historical evidence to answer a question such as this. And there is no doubt that political leadership is the only choice for this answer.

Organizations such as the EPA,FDA,SEC and BLM were created by political leaders. All of these bureaucracies were created to solve specific problems that existed within our country as a direct result of industry and citizens.

In general Industry and individuals if left to there own will would destroy this country. The long term behavior of the government bureaucracies are controlled however by the electoral process. All of this falls within the amazing sets of checks and balances that the founding fathers setup.

Answer 7

i think its got to be a mixed effort. At the moment, i think there is a big need to change the government policy. there needs to be more support for the environment. Buisnesses have no doubt a major hand in this indusrty, and the average Joe is also contributing.

the problem is, the population of the world is growing- in order to cater for these people (or our own race), we need buisnesses, and how can we provide all that is needed (worldwide) without some environmental impact.
the world as a whole needs to work together, one country alone cannot stop the crisis. and if you think about the average person, they all make an impact, alone this is not much, but the citizens as a whole is a huge problem. heres what i see:
1. Buisnesses make one of the biggest impacts on the physical environement with pollution, chemicals, water and energy consumption etc etc, who provide these things to the consumer, ho in turn use them to make the problem a whole lot worse, and the government has policies in place to protect this happening.
2. if there is going to be a change, it needs to be a group effort.

Answer 8

The degree to which a nation's consumer's consume is paramount. All other activity is a result of this. A frugal country will have a low impact. A poor country will have a low impact.

A country with lots of wealthy consumers (like the USA), will have a high impact. A country that builds things for rich consumers and is striving to become a consuming nation itself (like China or India) wil have a high impact.

The world is nothing more than 6 billion "Joe sixpacks"- factories don't polute or use energy just becsuse they can.

Answer 9

They are all important but ultimately it is up to the citizens to make the right choices, elect the right government, and demand green products. Unfortunately, the behavior of the citizens will be the most difficult to change.

Answer 10

Ahh Mr Jello you defy conventional wisdom. You must of seen the countries you mentioned unfavorably belching thick black soot from their industries smokestacks. Unfortuneatly there are those who want to make the US appear as the most greavous polluter in the world and you are not in their favor.