Environmental standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Environmental standards are administrative regulations or civil law rules[1] implemented for the treatment and maintenance of the environment. Environmental standards are set by a government and can include prohibition of specific activities, mandating the frequency and methods of monitoring, and requiring permits for the use of land or water.[2] Standards differ depending on the type of environmental activity.[1]

Environmental standards produce quantifiable and enforceable laws that promote environmental protection. The basis for the standards is determined by scientific opinions from varying disciplines, the views of the general population, and social context. As a result, the process of determining and implementing the standards is complex and is usually set within legal, administrative or private contexts.[1]

The human environment is distinct from the natural environment. The concept of the human environment considers that humans are permanently interlinked with their surroundings, which are not just the natural elements (air, water, and soil), but also culture, communication, co-operation, and institutions. Environmental standards should preserve nature and the environment, protect against damages, and repair past damage caused by human activity.[1]

Development of environmental standards[edit]

Historically, the development of environmental standards was influenced by two competing ideologies: ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. Ecocentrism frames the environment as having an intrinsic value divorced from the human utility, while anthropocentrism frames the environment as only having value if it helps humanity survive. This has led to problems in establishing standards.

Within the past few decades, the sensibility of people towards the topic of environmentalism has increased. In turn, the demand for protecting the environment has risen. This movement towards environmentalism was likely caused by the increased understanding of medicine and science, as well as advances in the measurement of factors contributing to environmental damage. This improved measurement allows scientists to further understand the impact of human-caused environmental destruction on human health and the biodiversity which composes the natural environment. These developments in science have been fundamental for the setting of environmental standards.

Environmental standards often define the desired state (e.g. the pH of a lake should be between 6.5 and 7.5) or limit alterations (e.g., no more than 50% of the natural forest may be damaged). Statistical methods are used to determine the specific states and limits the enforceable environmental standard.

Where environmental issues are concerned, uncertainties should always be taken into consideration. The first step to developing a standard is the evaluation of the specific risk. The expected value of the occurrence of the risk must be calculated. Then, possible damage should be classified. Three different types of damages exist - changes due to physiochemical environmental damages, ecological damages in plants and animals, and damages to human health.

To establish an acceptable risk, in view of the expected collective benefit, the risk-induced costs and the costs of risk avoidance must be socially balanced. The comparison is difficult to express in monetary units. Furthermore, the risks have multiple dimensions, which should be reached with a correlation at the end of the balancing process.

At the balancing process, the following steps should be considered:

  1. To establish objectives that serve both the protection of life, health and environment, and allow a rational allocation of social resources.
  2. Studying the possible outcomes of implementing these objectives.
  3. Considering social costs or damages, including opportunity costs and benefits which will arise when any of the available options are not further pursued.

Into the balancing process, the fairness of distributing the risks and the resilience with respect to sustaining the productivity of the environment should be observed too. In addition to the standard, an implementation rule, indicating under what circumstances the standard will be considered violated, is commonly part of the regulations. Penalties and other procedures for dealing with regions out of compliance with the standard may be part of the legislation.[3][4][5]

Governmental institutions setting environmental standards[edit]

Environmental standards are set by many different institutions, and most of the standards continue to be based on the principle of voluntary self-commitment.

United Nations (UN)[edit]

The UN, with 193 member states, is the largest intergovernmental organization. The environmental policy of the UN has a huge impact on the setting of international environmental standards. At the Earth summit in 1992, held in Rio, the member states acknowledged their negative impact on the environment for the first time. During this and the following Millennium Declaration, the first development goals for environmental issues were set.

Since then, the risk of the catastrophe caused by extreme weather has been enhanced by the overuse of natural resources and global warming. At the Paris Agreement in 2015, the UN determined 17 Goals for sustainable development. Besides the fight against global poverty, the main focus of the goals is the preservation of our planet. These goals set a baseline for global environmentalism. The environmental areas of water, energy, oceans, ecosystems, sustainable production, consumer behavior and climate protection were covered by the goals. The goals contained explanations on which mediums were required to reach them.

Whether the member states fulfill the settled goals is questionable. Some members perceive inspection or any other control from external parties as an intervention into their inner affairs. For this reason, the implementation and follow-up are only controlled by the Voluntary National Reviews. The main control is done by statistical values, which are called indicators. These indicators deliver information if the goals are reached.[6][7][8][9][10]

European Union[edit]

(See also: Environmental policy of the European Union)

Within the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union integrates a self-commitment towards the environment. In Title XX, Article 191.1, it is settled: “Union policy on the environment shall contribute to the pursuit of the following objectives: — preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, — protecting human health, — prudent and rational utilization of natural resources, — promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental; problems, and in particular combating climate change.” All environmental actions are based on this article and lead to a suite of environmental laws. European environmental regulation covers air, biotechnological, chemical, climate change, environmental economics, health, industry and technology, land use, nature and biodiversity, noise, protection of the ozone layer, soil, sustainable development, waste, and water.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) consults the member states about environmental issues, including standards. [3][11][12][13]

The environmental standards set by European legislation include precise parametric concentrations of pollutants and also includes target environmental concentrations to be achieved by specific dates.[1]

United States[edit]

In the United States, the development of standards is decentralized. These standards were developed by more than a hundred different institutions, many of which are private. The method of handling environmental standards is a partly fragmented plural system, which is mainly affected by the market.

Ambient air quality standards[edit]

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollutants in the air. The enforcement of these standards is designed to prevent further degradation of air quality.

States may set their own ambient standards, so long as they are lower than the national standard.[14] The NAAQS regulates the six criteria for air pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb).[15] To ensure that the ambient standards are met, the EPA uses the Federal Reference Method (FRM) and Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) systems to measure the number of pollutants in the air and check that they are within the legal limits.[16]

Air emission standards[edit]

Emission standards are national regulations managed by the EPA that control the amount and concentration of pollutants that can be released into the atmosphere to maintain air quality, human health, and regulate the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur.[17]

The standards are established in two phases to stay up-to-date, with final projections aiming to collectively save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 6 billion metric tons.[18] Similar to the ambient standards, individuals states may also tighten regulations. For example, California set their own emissions standards through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and these standards have been adopted by some other states.[19] Emission standards also regulate the number of pollutants released by heavy industry and for electricity.

The technological standards set by the EPA do not necessarily enforce the use of specific technologies, but set minimum performance levels for different industries.[20] The EPA often encourages technological improvement by setting standards that are not achievable with current technologies. These standards are always set based on the industry's top performers to promote the overall improvement of the industry as a whole.[20]

Impact of non-governmental organizations on environmental standards[edit]

International Organization of Standardization[edit]

The International Organization of Standardization (IOS) develops a large number of voluntary standards. With 163 member states, it has a comprehensive outreach. The standards set by the IOS were often transmitted into national standards by different nations. About 363,000 companies and organizations worldwide have the ISO 14001 certificate, a standard for environmental management created to improve the environmental performance of an organization and legal aspects as well as reaching environmental aims. Most of the national and international environmental management standards include the ISO 14000 series. [3][21][22]

Greenpeace[edit]

Greenpeace is a popular non-governmental organization that deals with biodiversity and the environment. Their activities have had a great global impact on environmental issues. Greenpeace encourages public attention and enforces governments or companies to adapt and set environmental standards through activities recording special environmental issues. Their main focus is on forests, the sea, climate change, and toxic chemicals. For example, the organization set a standard about toxic chemicals together with the textiles sector, creating the concept 2020, which plans to banish all toxic chemicals from textile production by 2020.[23][24]

World Wildlife Fund[edit]

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) focuses on how to produce the maximum yield in agriculture while conserving biodiversity. They try to educate, protect, and reach policy changes and incentives to achieve these goals. [25][clarification needed]

Economy[edit]

Environmental standards in the economy are set through external motivation. First, companies need to fulfill the environmental law of the countries in which they operate. Moreover, environmental standards are based on voluntary self-commitment which means companies implement standards for their business. These standards should exceed the level of the requirements of governmental regulations. If companies set further-reaching standards, they try to fulfill the wishes of stakeholders.

At the process of setting environmental standards, three different stakeholders have the main influence. The first stakeholder, the government, is the strongest determinate, followed by the influence of the customers. Nowadays, there is an increasing number of people, who consider environmental factors during their purchasing decision. The third stakeholder who forces companies to set environmental standards is industrial participants. If companies are part of industrial networks, they are forced to fulfill the codes of conduct of these networks. This code of conduct is often set to improve the collective reputation of an industry. Another driving force of industry participants could be a reaction to a competitors action.

The environmental standards set by companies themselves can be divided into two dimensions: operational environmental policies and the message sent in advertising and public communications.

Operational environmental policies[edit]

This can be the environmental management, audits, controls, or technologies. In this dimension, the regulations tend to be closely connected with other function areas, e.g. lean production. Furthermore, it could be understood that multinational companies tend to set cross-country harmonized environmental government regulations and therefore reach a higher performance level of environmental standards.

It is often argued that companies focus on the second dimension: the message sent in advertising and public communications. To satisfy the stakeholders' requirement, companies were focused on the public impression of their environmental self-commitment standards. Often the real implementation does not play an important role.

A lot of companies settle the responsibility for the implementation of low-budget departments. The workers, who were in charge of the standards missing time and financial resources to guarantee a real implementation. Furthermore, within the implementation, goal conflicts arise. The biggest concern of companies is that environmental protection is more expansive compared to the gained beneficial effects. But, there are a lot of positive cost-benefit-calculation for environmental standards set by companies themselves. It is observed that companies often set environmental standards after a public crisis. Sometimes environmental standards were already set by companies to avoid public crises. As to whether environmental self-commitment standards are effective, is controversial. [26][27][28][29]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e Pinkau, K. (1998). Environmental Standards: Scientific Foundations and Rational Procedures of Radiological Risk Management. Springer Science & Business Media B.V. pp. XVII–XXXIII, 1–45. ISBN 978-1-4419-5027-7.
  2. ^ "National Environmental Standards". Environment Guide.
  3. ^ a b c "Ausarbeitung Zu Umweltstandards in Kanada, den USA und der EU". Der Deutsche Bundestag. 2016.
  4. ^ Barnett, V. (1997). Setting Environmental Standards: The Statistical Approach to Handling uncertainty and variation. Chapman and Hall. pp. 1–40.
  5. ^ Guttorp, Peter (December 2006). "Setting environmental standards: A statistician's perspective". Environmental Geosciences. 13/4: 261–266.
  6. ^ Martens, Jens (2017). "Die Agenda 2030 Globale Zukunftsziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung". Global Policy Forum: 7–20.
  7. ^ "UN Sustainable Development Goals - can ISO standards help? Yes!". Retrieved 2018-11-12.
  8. ^ "Die Umsetzung der globalen 2030-Agenda für nachhaltige Entwicklung". 2015. Retrieved 2018-11-12.
  9. ^ "Die Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung". Retrieved 2018-11-12.
  10. ^ Stam, Claire (2018-10-29). "Studie: Nur 16 Staaten erfüllen Pariser Klima-Zusagen". Retrieved 2018-11-05.
  11. ^ "Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union". Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  12. ^ "Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union". Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  13. ^ Steigenberger, Markus (2009-03-30). "Internationale und Europäische Umweltpolitik". Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  14. ^ "40 CFR 50.2 - Scope". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2017-11-21.
  15. ^ "40 CFR Part 50 - NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2017-11-21.
  16. ^ &Development, Office of Research. "Reference and Equivalent Methods Used to Measure National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Criteria Air Pollutants - Volume I". cfpub.epa.gov. Retrieved 2017-11-21.
  17. ^ "Wayback Machine" (PDF). 2008-11-20. Retrieved 2017-11-21.
  18. ^ EPA,OAR,OTAQ, US. "Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Cars and Trucks | US EPA". US EPA. Retrieved 2017-11-21.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ^ "How the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Works". HowStuffWorks. 2008-09-12. Retrieved 2017-11-21.
  20. ^ a b EPA,OAR, US. "Setting Emissions Standards Based on Technology Performance | US EPA". US EPA. Retrieved 2017-11-21.
  21. ^ Rondinelli, Dennis A. (Fall 1996). "International Environmental Standards and Corporate Policies: An Integrative Framework". California Management Review. 39.
  22. ^ "ISO 14001 - Umwelt management system norm". 2018-11-07. Retrieved 2018-11-12.
  23. ^ Fricke, Kristin Lorey. "Greenpeace International". Retrieved 2018-11-14.
  24. ^ Reimer, Brea (2016). "Biodiversity". Retrieved 2018-11-14.
  25. ^ Deidenbach, Caroline. "Umweltstandards". Retrieved 2018-11-12.
  26. ^ Christmann, Petra (2004). "Multinational Companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardisation". Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 47, No. 5: 747–760.
  27. ^ Levy, Ting (2016). "Global environmental standards with heterogeneous polluters". International Review of Economics and Finance. 43: 482–498.
  28. ^ Müller, Martin (2014). "Realität oder Schein Eine qualitative Untersuchung zur Entkopplungsthese bei der Umsetzung von Umwelt- und Sozialstandards in Unternehmen". zfwu. 15/1: 8–26.
  29. ^ Palmer, Karen (Fall 1995). "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 9/4: 119–132.

External links[edit]