There is an exacerbating tendency in our society for poor people to be the ones that suffer the costs of hazardous, dirty or unwelcome developments. Siting a dirty industry in an already dirty area will be less costly than siting it in a low-pollution area because the costs of pollution, if measured in terms of decline in property values will be lower. Similarly, siting the polluting industry in an area that already has depressed property values, will also be less costly by this method than siting it in an affluent area. In this way the poor are continually disadvantaged by market-driven environmental choices. Consolidation of Power Another distributional issue is that market values, because they are based on individual preferences, tend to reflect and therefore maintain the prevailing distribution of income.
Wealthier people are willing and able to pay more and therefore their votes count more.
Property rights are bought up by those most able to afford them and it is the owners of private property who determine its fate. Economic incentives for them to conserve their property appeal to property owners far more than government controls which require them to conserve it. Economic instruments are an increasingly attractive alternative to industry as public pressure mounts to tighten up and increase environmental legislation. The Nature of Sustainable Development , Scribe, Newham, Victoria. The Conservationists Response to the Pearce Report , British Association of Nature Conservationists.