The federal government tends to manage
millions of acres of the forest land in the country. However, there is the
increasing pressure on agencies to permit different levels of commercial access
to timber, water flow, and other resources. I believe that the government
should have the absolute prohibition on commercial access. A company that
claims to be ethical should not seek commercial access to the land. When
following my perspective, it will allow the land to remain the way it is
without any agencies depleting the land. The decision will also ensure that the
country ensures safety for its wild animals, and there are no parties trying to
destroy the natural resources. In case there is a working compromise from the
companies, it will make it extremely hard for the federal government to
restrict company’s access that wants more access to the land. The government
must have an absolute prohibition on commercial access to the forest because
maintaining the balance between the commercial land and the forest is necessary.
When the government is controlling land, there are usually many competing
pressures on land use from the vocal environmentalists, vocal companies, and
union lobbyists who are trying to protect jobs (Fieser & Moseley 2012).
There is a substantial need for regulations that will help in controlling the
operations of companies so as to ensure they do not harm the environment. I
believe that there should not be a working compromise with companies because
companies are likely to permit exploitation for their benefit while the
habitats continue to suffer.
From the ethical perspective of a group
I belong to, it would consider it ethical to turn common lands over to private
ownership. Private ownership would produce an incentive to sustain the value of
the land (Fieser & Moseley 2012). When the government owns the land and
companies have a chance of exploiting resources with the full support of the
law, they are likely to do so. It is in the interest of companies to maximize
returns from their efforts. So as to avoid exploitation, the best solution
would be to privatize the land and give companies the incentive of looking
after what they own.
If I manage millions of acres of forest
land, I will consider proposing a law that will require companies to participate
in operations that do not cause harm to the environment. The law must include
steep penalties for those companies that pollute the environment. Implementing
the law will help in ensuring that organization are environmental safe for
humans and also animals. When there are no laws, it is likely for the society
to encounter devastating effects. Organizations fail to look at the big picture
and only focus on making profits and it is essential for this though process to
change (McEvoy, 2005). Hence, it is important to propose environmental laws
that will ensure companies do not cause much human misery. I would also
encourage consumers to act in an ethical manner so as to help save our
environment. If consumers know that the product that they are using is leading
to diminished use in the future, they should avoid consuming the product. Such
an act will encourage companies to start conducting operations that do not harm
the environment. When there are no laws, companies are likely to destroy
forests, and such actions would have a negative effect on the wildlife and also
the society.
Reference
Fieser,
J, & Moseley, A. (2012). Introduction
to Business Ethics Bridgepoint Education, Inc
McEvoy,
T (2005). Owning and managing forests Island Press
Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in nursing writing services. If you need a similar paper you can place your order from best custom term papers.
Comments
Post a Comment