Week 3 Blog
The government is always involved when
it comes to enforcing environmental policy. There are five main types of tools
that may be implemented: Markets (least government involvement), Law (medium
level of government involvement), Regulation (direct and high government
involvement), Government, and public participation.
Here at the University of Cincinnati,
there are a variety of environmental enterprises, in addition, the city of
Cincinnati has an abundant amount of environmental policies. Both the University of Cincinnati and the city of Cincinnati both
use environmental "tools" to implement policies.
There
are many market-based approaches when it comes to environmental and land
policies. Jerold Kayden states in his Market-Based
Regulatory Approaches: A Comparative Discussion of Environmental and Land Use
Techniques in the United States paper
that, “Cincinnati, Ohio, granted incentives for historic preservation.”
These incentives are great because the historic preservations are more likely
going to be kept in preservation for people to enjoy. A disadvantage
might be that a building/business could have built in that certain spot, which
would have raised money for the city and more local jobs.
Laws are a way of life. If you
disobey the law you can get sued, jail time, or fined. The University of
Cincinnati has many “policies” that can be viewed at as laws for this journal
blog. Utilities cost for energy is very important at UC. If the
engineers don’t operate and maintain the facilities and equipment then they
could potentially have a lawsuit filed against them or UC.
An example
of a regulation tool at the University of Cincinnati would be how it controls
the dining halls. Tray less dining, meatless Mondays, sustainable seafood
and the type of cooking oil are a few types of regulations that UC has within the
food services. The university has a thing called sustainable
seafood.
All
seafood offered at UC is sourced sustainable in conjunction with the Monterey
Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program. This program focuses on creating a
healthy, abundant ocean for everyone to enjoy. They hope to regulate the amount
of fishing done in oceans. By contributing to this program, UC, too, helps
regulate the oceans. An advantage to this program is that the University
of Cincinnati is against over consumption of fish. A disadvantage would
be by regulating the amount of fishing, means less jobs for fisherman.
Many
disadvantages and advantages lie within the University of Cincinnati, the city
of Cincinnati, and all over the world.
Different types of tools can be used to enforce environmental laws. Historic preservations in Cincinnati, energy
being consumed on campus, and the food services at UC use these tools to apply environmental
laws.
Work Cited:
Kayden, Jerold. "Market-Based
Regulatory Approaches: A Comparative Discussion Environmental
and Land Use Techniques in the United States." Law Journals at Digital
Commons. 19.3 (1991): 565-579. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
Hi, Brian:
ReplyDeleteGood job overall. One point at the outset: Government and regulation are usually lumped into one category as tools for achieving environmental quality. Public participation is a tool, but not in the same direct manner as are the other three. Public participation generally achieves environmental quality by bringing to bear pressure that encourages application of market, law, or regulatory tools.
I like that you identified historical preservation as a market-based tool. Cincinnati certainly has historic properties and buildings, and people are incentivized to protect them. This point would have been stronger had you provided examples of properties and/or the amounts set aside to encourage their protection.
I would have liked a bit more depth on the advantages and disadvantages of each tool. I also was looking for you to cite the sources of your information using Chicago style. Please do so in the future. The content you had was good and the entry was interesting, but I think there's room for improvement.
Journal content: 1.4/1.6
Journal writing quality: 0.2/0.3*
*Lack of citation