The job to be done, about Pollution

[Deleted]

This is not really a debate, more of a suggestive need of the time. We know that with heavy industrialisation, our land, water and air quality is being degraded day by day. Obviously, this is bound to hit 10ki as well. The question is of stalling this imminent disaster, and helping to reduce air pollution, water pollution and radioactive waste disposition.
Now, there are many ways to talk about this problem and its solution, but we all know, that action is the need of the hour.
"But what is to be done?" You ask. And I tell you this. Three of the most important things are research, law enforcement, and spreading awareness. The questions are:
a) In what order is it right to do these three actions?
b) These are very vague terms, so the precise plan of action would be?
c) Supposing the air pollution in your country is very high. How would you tackle it?

[Invictus]

Looks like no one else is responding, so I'll step up to bat.

a. Given your three options I would order them in regards to descending importance.
1. I think that research would be the most important step out of the three. We cannot know if (long term) laws would be effective until we have evidence of what types of pollution an area is suffering from and its sources of pollution.
2. After research and evidence has been obtained and examined, laws should be enacted and that are based upon that research in order to reverse the effects of pollution and enforced to protect it from unacceptable pollution levels in the future.
3.Lastly, it will be important to make the public aware of the pollution, the sources of it, and the laws enacted to prevent pollution.

b. In order to have a decisive plan of action, it would depend on the type of government. If the government of a polluted land was democratic, it would certainly give an individual little power. If this were the case, it would be of utmost importance to spread awareness and bring others to one's cause in order to influence the legislative body. If I were the autonomous leader of a defined area in which there was substantial pollution originating within, I would generally follow the steps that I mentioned above. I would seek to determine the cause and scope of all different kinds of pollution (air, water, land, etc.). From this, I would have laws that limited certain pollution-producing industries and their waste disposal methods. I would enforce heavy punishments to those who pollute in order to deter others. Lastly, I'd launch an awareness campaign addressing the issue of pollution, what can be done about it, and the laws that have been put into place.

c. Supposing that the largest source of air pollution is major industry and exhaust and not some natural phenomena, naturally I would work to curb the effect by tackling its sources. As we can see today, major cities in China face this issue; at times to an extreme degree. In major metropolitan areas, I would encourage public transport and spend funds in order to make public transit efficient and fast. This would reduce pollution from car exhausts in heavily populated areas. In an ideal world, I would place industries that do cause major pollution far removed from populated areas. I would not allow my country to attempt to industrialize unrestricted to the extent that my countrymen would have to wear face masks from all the pollution (i.e. China). The end goal is to really develop and advance energy technologies to produce emission-free sources of power that pollute very little. I would work towards sustainable energy while protecting the environment as much as competitively possible with regulation in the meantime.

[Deleted]

Invictus, Really thoughtful answer. I believe I agree with you till a point. However, there are a few things that I wish to question about, a few questions that are the real Deal, as one can put it. Here are the questions:
1) Your point about adequate research is valid, and is very applicable as well. The real issue in the argument is the economic aspect of it. The nations that are economically impoverished are those which have the basic need of pollution control. How is that to be tackled in a global scenario?
2) We all know that research takes time. What is to be done till time the research is corroborated, developed and supplemented?
3) You state that public awareness comes after law-making, and the perspective is valid. But, if a democratic populace does not step up the demand for a law, there will be no law. And that can not happen without awareness of the public! A vicious circle, indeed! How does you nation tackle that?

[Invictus]

@cazalius
1. Honestly, I don't know how this would be tackled. Nations who are beginning to emerge from poverty and industrialize may just have to accept the pollution; at least temporarily. I think it would be wise for foreign experts and advisers to aid in this process to make the industrial transition as less toxic and damaging as possible. If we're talking about other forms of pollution (like garbage) then the impoverished country will need to work on developing its infrastructure to better deal with waste management and logistics. On a global scale, every country will want to ensure that the second and third world countries that begin to industrialize do so in a way that makes it the least harmful to the environment. It can possibly be and would likely go over much better with foreign aid and expertise from first-world post-industrial countries. This is just me brainstorming, however. I really can't think of a well thought out way of dealing with it. I do however do not think it to be wise to allow these hypothetical countries to go through this process on their own.

2. I suppose in the meantime there should be some degree of public awareness about possible major sources of pollution. The signs of major pollution would be more obvious in industrializing nations, but if there is significant research being done regarding pollution, then there may be enough scientific suspicion already that it is occurring to some degree. I think this would be valid enough to raise awareness about pollution in the meantime.

3. In a nation that is truly democratic (where I don't really make the decisions) then public awareness would be the antecedent to law-making. The best way to handle it in this scenario would be to conduct research and then disseminate the findings to the public. This should raise awareness to the condition of the environment, and certain groups and individuals would then seek to inform citizens and legislators, who would then demand action possibly leading to the change in laws. In this scenario, your 3 steps in order would be research > inform > make laws.

I think the end goal here is to make the transition to cleaner forms of energy as less damaging and polluting to the environment as possible.