When reading about the market-based vs. government-regulated approach theories and their outcomes so far, I became very interested. While both approaches seem to be accompanied by some drawbacks, upon completing the excerpt I reached the conclusion that I was in support of the yes selection, presented by economist Paul Krugman. What I gathered from this market-based approach is that it provides incentives, or rewards, to those in the industry successfully reducing the amount of pollution, specifically the levels of carbon dioxide. Power plants are stationed across the world and many operate by using coal, which leads to an astronomical amount of pollution, for instance, acid rain. Some view it as costly and believe that it is simply granting individuals permission to pollute, whereas the opposing side sees it as an opportunity to experiment with new and innovative forms of technology, working to determine the best possible solution to reducing emissions in a cost-efficient manner. Cap-and-trade strategies are being further employed in various parts of the world, seeing notable results, for instance, stabilizing the price of carbon permits. It sets rules in place attempting to eliminate, or at least reduce behaviors that will result in consequences for all of those around, such as those relating to the issue of pollution and encourages countries to work together in order to achieve decreased amounts of contaminants being released into the environment.
When coming across the Wicked problems website to, I found it to be very informative. When considering the different ways in which we are going about the environmental crisis and weighing if they are truly the best approaches to the problem or not, it proved to be a very helpful resource. It also helped me to better grasp what makes a problem wicked, and how to go about beginning to form possible solutions to these problems. It helped to clarify the difference between a wicked problem and one that is just hard to solve; prior to coming across the website, I would not have known that the two things were any different. It opened my eyes to the emphasis being placed on innovation rather than attempting to solve these wicked problems, such as pollution. The site also helped me to consider the ways in which we are going about the environmental crisis and if they are truly the best approaches to the problem. The Skoll Foundation serves as a great example of a company based around social entrepreneurship, which I believe is a way in which more companies should operate. They recognize those who contribute to solving some of the world’s most complex problems by investing in, connecting with and celebrating them. Their focus lies in innovation and change throughout the world. Featured on their website are companies or programs that have received awards for the outstanding work they do, among these companies are Villagereach and Encore.org. This, in combination with the market reading and much other research, leaves me with so many unanswered questions I wish to further explore. How did pollution ever amount to this magnitude? How were there not serious measures put into place to prevent such a crisis from occurring? It’s as if it just snuck up on us and before we even knew it, we were facing this monumental crisis, but that simply cannot be the case. Certain people had to be aware of the extent to which overconsumption would affect the state of the earth and the human population. I plan on diving into this problem headfirst and hopefully finding some more precise answers