Saturday, December 14, 2019

Op/Ed: “Consuming our way to Extinction”

“Consuming our way to Extinction”
Written & Researched by Sarah Cipollini, December 2019
 photo by John B. Henderson, Seattle 2010

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbhthescots/5227664185


The average American household has over 300,000 items in it and that number grows each year. As our dependence on producing and purchasing material goods increases, we continue to outgrow our need for them, yet we can’t stop. Our methods of disposing of byproducts and used products are often detrimental to public and environmental health, yet we don’t care. The buying, selling, and sharing of goods can provide income, livelihood, and community among other things- but our obsession has the potential to cause more harm than good, and already has. Unfortunately, the U.S. has a front-row seat to the harsh realities of overconsumption, careless waste, and overproduction in the saga of irresponsible consumerism. 
As we have become more dependent on nonessential, luxury items, consumerism has become a way of being, almost becoming a personality trait or identity for some. Most consumption comes directly and indirectly at the expense of people and the planet due to a lack of regard on the part of lawmakers, producers, business owners, and consumers. A huge consumerism boom in the United States encouraged by a deeply rooted, strategic government agenda hoping to further the trend of our rising global affluence following the Industrial Revolution started us on a path we soon realized would be difficult to come back from. As we became more wealthy as a nation, the population began desiring more nonessential material goods and services, which in turn began to be an indicator of social status and wellbeing for those who could afford it. 
In order to survive, responsible need-based consumption should take the place of excessive, greed-based consumption. In the consumer culture we live in, it’s incredibly difficult to be someone who does not have the funds to sustain a life of purchasing fueled by want over need. In a study done in March 2012 by Orazio Attanasio, Erik Hurst, and Luigi Pistaferri found that between 1980 and 2010, an increase in income inequality mirrored an increase in consumption inequality. 
Although at its core, consumerism is not inherently negative, the way it has been twisted to meet demand as we become more developed and more affluent is harmful to the wellbeing of people and the planet. The path of irresponsible consumption fueled by an intoxicating carelessness on the part of the most wealthy and selfish in the United States and worldwide will only continue to hurt us if we allow it to. Sustainable, educated, and empowered conscious consumerism offers a promising alternative to the struggle of quenching the unquenchable thirst of materialism that humans cannot seem to defeat. As much as we would like to think we have prepared sufficiently enough to venture away from our neoclassic economic methods of buying and selling, there is still a fair amount of consumer and producer re-education and encouragement needed in order to make a significant positive change that will last. Sustainable initiatives in businesses end up resulting in better public image and a healthier environment. By encouraging those who provide us with what we purchase to be more sustainably conscious, socially conscious, and environmentally conscious, the negative impacts of consumption can begin to be significantly mitigated.
It’s unlikely that every person everywhere will stop consuming entirely, nor should we expect them to. Additionally, leading companies and corporations have a way of infiltrating everywhere they can, including our government powers, in order to promote looser regulations for industry and business. For these reasons, it’s crucial we continue educating shoppers and business owners about how we can effectively “use business as a force for good,” inspired by a movement championed by the B corporation certification community of businesses who have achieved rigorous social and environmental standards.
It has become clear that there’s only so far we can go on the path of focusing all our energy on consumer education and engagement. In order to truly make a difference for the social and environmental wellbeing of our communities, we must encourage businesses and corporations to make a change in what they’re offering. Oftentimes, even if someone considers themselves socially and environmentally conscious, they will most likely opt for whichever product offers the most convenience over the one that is the most sustainable. By working towards having more companies focused on not only providing consumers with more environmentally and socially responsible products but also marketing those products to shoppers effectively, there is a chance we can engage with the necessary culture shift in order to take down destructive consumption once and for all. 
As much as we’d like it to be, conscious consumption is not the answer to solve our challenging social and environmental problems. If we cannot work effectively to educate, empower, and organize shoppers and citizens to demand structural change in the form of regulation and policy created, enacted, and enforced by our government, we cannot hope to make a meaningful positive difference in the world we are dealing with today. In order to truly make a positive difference in the fight for a just and sustainable world for all moving forward, we must cut down immensely on how much we purchase, as well as working on increasing our skills of DIY projects, sewing, thrifting, creating things, using what we already have, and making well-informed decisions when you do end up purchasing something new. We cannot expect consumerism to disappear entirely, but we can work to rewrite the rules of the systems responsible for furthering oppressive mindsets and practices within businesses preventing us from being sustainable, conscious global community members.

Sunday, December 8, 2019

Op/Ed: New Nuclear Notions

Researched and Written by Holly Francis
December 8, 2019
Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island. Do these nuclear disasters ring any bells? Nuclear energy is often considered essential in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as air pollution; however, the externalities are neglected in regulations and unplanned disasters have occurred and are difficult to prevent. Furthermore, the public rarely has a say in how nuclear energy operates nor do they have the proper knowledge to contribute to the decision making process. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the US governing body, controls the rules and inspections for nuclear energy, but, historically, has been the one to exploit the public and avoid true consideration of the energy’s latent issues. The NRC has overfunded and overvalued traditional nuclear energy ever since 1951, disregarding any better alternative methods of nuclear energy production.
Nuclear energy is prized for being a clean and consistent form of energy. This closed-system uses nuclear fission where atoms are split apart, resulting in the release of energy in the form of heat and radiation. Uranium is the most commonly used mineral for this process, but the result of this process is a radioactive isotope that needs to be stored properly. Another factor to consider is that uranium is not a renewable resource; however, when nuclear fission occurs, the neutrons that are split off of the atoms fly into other atoms, causing a chain reaction that can be sustained for a long period of time without new input. Because this is an enclosed system that can be manipulated by humans and is much cleaner than its fossil fuel counterparts. There is a lot of debate for and against this form of energy, but it is objectively cleaner and more efficient than fossil fuels.
This bar graph shows the greenhouse gas emissions associated with different energy sources. This graph was used from the World Nuclear Association

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the US governing body that helps to address the safety concerns to prevent nuclear disasters. Without the NRC, the US could have easily experienced a large nuclear disaster, but each facility is required to comply with the regulations that the NRC sets. However, verbatim from the NRC’s page, “The NRC also strives to improve its processes in these five areas through risk-informed and performance-based regulation” (NRC, 2017). The NRC can have the most solid regulation enforcement plan possible, but if the regulations are based on risk assessment, these regulations are inherently faulty. Justifying poor practices keeps the facilities from having to impose drastic changes or acquire more expenses, compromising both safety and the environment’s wellbeing. 
A way to address these problems comes with a concept that author Mary O’Brien loves: alternatives assessment. “Alternatives assessment means looking at the pros and cons of a broad range of options” (O’Brien, 2000, pp. 130). Unlike the NRC’s way of using risk assessment, alternatives assessments compiles all of the options to analyze which one would be best, so rather than figuring out what waste storage would mitigate the radioactive waste’s danger, options that are as efficient and carbon clean as nuclear energy could be developed to eliminate the radioactive waste entirely. For example, there is a potentially powerful reactor called a liquid fluoride thorium reactor. Thorium is a very advantageous resource; it is more abundant than uranium, the waste is much less toxic, the energy returned on the energy invested is much higher than traditional uranium reactors, and the chance of a nuclear disaster event is much less dire as the liquid just solidifies when cooled or exposed rather than emitting toxic radiation. The major downfall of this method is that there has not been nearly enough research and development put into this method. Alternatives assessment would take all of these facts into consideration and may help us make a better decision when it comes to efficient and cleaner energy. 
As a whole, nuclear energy is a much cleaner alternative to coal which has plagued our atmosphere. However, this simple fact does not mean that there are no better options than, or even within, nuclear energy and this is where the US has really become stagnant. As O’Brien made apparent in her book, the constant use of risk assessment is going to lead us into a narrow-minded and ignorant direction. Alternatives assessment is much more comprehensive, accessible, and ethical for both people and the environment. We cannot hide behind the notion that nuclear energy is absolutely necessary for a cleaner and sustainable society, nor can we hide behind the idea that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous and shouldn’t be used at all. We just have to reshape the problem itself and realize that there are more solutions out there than we are recognizing. All we have to do is take a step back and assess this situation with a different view; then maybe we can fight the climate crisis with a safe, reliable, and properly regulated form of energy.




References
NRC. (2017, December 15). How we regulate. Retrieved Nov 1, 2019, from
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory.html
O’Brien, M. (2000). Making better environmental decisions: an alternative to risk assessment.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Rising water, Sinking Dreams, Breaching Hopes

Our world is in grave danger, facing threats to it's safety from all sides. The climate crisis is getting
ever closer to a tipping point that we will not be able to get back from. However many people don't
pay attention to this issue because they don't think it will have much of an effect on them and their
jobs, this could not be further from the truth. Much of human industry was built along the cost to help
with trade and now the rising waters puts them at risk. DUE TO THE RISK OF RISING WATERS IN
THIS MODERN ERA TO WESTERN CIVILIZATIONS COASTAL INDUSTRY THERE IS MUCH TO
WORRY ABOUT, BUT IF MANAGED WELL THEY WILL BE ABLE TO OVERCOME THIS RISK AND
END UP THE BETTER FOR IT.
Humans have had a very long and important relationship with waterways and the cost going back
about as long as civilization has existed. They have acted as a source of water and a method for
travel allowing for the establishment of trade across long distances. This has resulted in a great deal
of cities and infrastructure being created along the coast and humanity deepening a great deal on
such land. All life comes from the ocean and over half of the living organisms in the world call it home
so honestly it is no surprise that it is so important to humanity despite no longer calling it our home.
As the global population has increased so has the number of people living specifically in coastal
regions. Due to large urban centers forming along coasts about 40% of the world's population lives
within 100 kilometers of the coast, this has put a great deal of industry very close to the ocean
because all of those people need infrastructure inorder to survive and thrive. While flight is now one
method of travel and transport shipping is still used to handle over 90% of the worlds trade goods.
Without this system in place the world economy would be nowhere near as big as it is now.
Before we look at the dangers to our coastal infrastructure and the risk assessment and alternatives
assessment ways to deal with it we should consider what industries will be most affected. Shiping as
mentioned is a huge deal for global trade and we have quite a bit of area developed for it specifically.
The location of such shopping areas is very important as if it is not deep enough cargo ships will not
be able to dock. Tourism and all of the businesses that benefit from it are another very large industry
to consider. Locations such as Italy, California, and Hawaii depend a great deal on coastal tourism as
a source of income.
Our coastal cities and industry is under threat from climate change in a much more specific way
then we see in more inland parts of the world. About four hundred billion tons of ice melts each year
resulting in the ocean raising an estimated at 3.4 millimeters per year. If this keeps going at its current
rate, or even worse speeds up as is like to happen, we will see a large drop in the amount of available
land. Many people will go out of business and shipping lines will have to relocate in words if they are
even able to do so given how the area might not be suitable for large ships. Some islands will become
completely submerged destroying any economic value the area might have and forcing people to relocate.
When looking at the problem through the lens of risk assessment it comes down to just numbers. The
direct cost to businesses or the relocation of people and does not stop to think of what it means for
things such as culture. One of the most common solutions put forward in this day and age that uses risk
assessment as its base is the construction of ocean walls to help deal with rising water. This is put
forward as an engineering way to deal with the issues caused by rising water but does nothing to
actually prevent it. It is also only viable in the more western countries proposing it as they have the
money to actually do it. It is a shortsighted fix that will only work in specific situations and not actually
fix the problem costing more money now and in the future.
Alternatives assessment on the other hand takes a lot more into account than just cost benefit analysis
looking at the many different solutions to a problem and deciding what provides the best outcome for
everyone. Looking at this issue through this lense gives us a different view, rather than suppressing the
symptoms we need to find a solution to the cause. While there are many things people are trying to do
to stop and slow climate change I feel that if we looked at it through the lenses of economics and coastal
communities at actual risk many more people would get involved. Education and getting people
involved is always a good idea as it will lead to new innovative solutions
While it is clear that what will happen if we do nothing or are just reactionary will be quite awful coastal
industry does have the opportunity to gain from it. By putting themselves forward as taking this issue
seriously companies would be able to get quite a bit of good press around it. Alternatives assessment
is all about community engagement and making sure everyone has a voice so being a part of this
means people will be talking about you. It is also  worth noting that green solutions to problems and
energy are expanding fields so there is quite a lot of money to be made by getting into the market. 
While I would love for corporations to out of the goodness of their heart make the world a better place,
improve the environment, and switch to Alternatives assessment that will just not happen. If we want to
see real change in our world we have to appeal to what drives people, while that can be different for
everyone some of the biggest drivers are survival and money. By educating people on how coastal
industry is at risk we let them know how their personal wellbeing and survival is in dangor. By thinking
of viable solutions and opportunities we also give them a way to benefit from the situation.
Our world is at risk and we must walk with purposeful steps to avoid tragedy while dealing with the
environment. The rising sea level is a direct representation of the issues we are having to get a handle
on and is something that can be seen as time passes. This obviousness of the problem makes it a very
good way to judge how much our changing environment affects people. Jobs and lives are at risk from
this issue and it should be taken as seriously as any form of natural disaster. Rather than using the
flawed system of Risk Assessment to keep the status flow and be put in danger for the future, switching
to the system of Alternatives Assessment would allow for us to come up with new and better solutions.
However, as we have seen problems are also opportunities in our modern era not only to get past but
improve on our lives and industry.
Sources:
“Coastal Zone Population.” Columbia.edu, sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/papers/Coastal_Zone_
Pop_Method.pdf.
“Econ Report.” Coast.noaa.gov, coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/econ-report.pdf.
MarineBio. “Home.” MarineBio Conservation Society, 8 June 2019, marinebio.org/creatures/facts/.
National Geographic Society. “River.” National Geographic Society, 9 Oct. 2012,
www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/river/.
“The Power of Rivers.” Nature.org, www.nature.org/media/freshwater/power-of-rivers-report.pdf.
“Tons of Melted Ice - Globally This Year.” The World Counts, www.theworldcounts.com/
counters/why_is_climate_change_important/melting_ice_caps_facts.
Willis, Joshua K., and Ocean Portal Team. “Sea Level Rise.” Smithsonian Ocean, 5 Aug. 2019,
ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise.

FINAL EXAM: Due Thursday, December 12 @ MIDNIGHT.

Project #2: EDM Research OP/ED
Draft and publish right here an 800 word OP/ED piece summarizing your EDM findings for a popular audience. Imagine writing for the New York Times.

Project #3: EDM Research Reflection
Write and publish right here a 1,000 word reflection on your EDM research project, in which you explore the tribulations and triumphs of your semester of work.

Monday, December 2, 2019

The Greater Risk of Risk Assessment


The Greater Risk of Risk Assessment:

The Current Failure to Ensure Clean Drinking Water Within the United States 

Link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STklCwuEFjfnuR1dLUmYAjGAXLx4lYybDLLz2BkDLvI/edit?usp=sharing

Talking Points:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pXNgdNk2dQUr82iBp2a42Q7EZNFniWWYJsqQCKUZ7Q/edit?usp=sharing

Structural Adjustment Programs


Development without Neoliberalism: 
An Alternatives Assessment of Structural Adjustment

Structural Adjustment Programs are the new form of colonialism that has allowed powerful world leaders to exploit and degrade “developing” countries. International Institutions funded by the West give conditional loans to developing countries that eventually lead to the country becoming indebted to these insitions. The conditional loans require the implementation of free-market reform policies in order to make the country more competitive in the global economy. However, these loans usually fail and the policy reforms lead to an increase in poverty, inequalities and environmental harm. Structural adjustment in only one way to develop and more successful alternatives are available and being implemented. SINCE THE BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENT IN 1944, THE WESTERN WORLD HAVE USED THE WORLD BANK AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND TO PROMOTE STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE WORLD IN A WAY THAT BEST SUITS THEIR NEOLIBERAL AGENDA WHICH HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION.

The Bretton Woods Agreement is a way to monetary management system of the global economy. After World War II ended the value of money greatly decreased through hyperinflation and countries were looking to rebuild their infrastructure and economy. The Bretton Woods Agreement aimed at maintaining international financial stability and to finance development projects. The two main products of the agreement are the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). The IMF enforces the Bretton Woods Agreement through having fixed economics centered around the US dollar and, fixed exchange rates and lending to member countries. (Amadeo) After World War II the WB aimed at lending money to countries devastated by the war but not lends money to “emerging market” countries through economic development projects. In the 1950’s the IMF and WB began concentrating on “developing” countries’ macroeconomics and Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) became the method to achieve these development goals. 

The IMF and the World Bank started lending money through economic reform policies, called Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) beginning in the 1950s. They are often referred to as Free Market Reforms. The goal of these loans to help developing countries that are undergoing an economic crisis and poverty adjust their economy in order to boost the economy and have long term growth through foreign direct investment. They are conditional loans that focus on neoliberal principles and therefore free market. Free market economies consist of deregulation and unrestricted competition within the private sector. (Halton) Loans are dependent on countries implementing a combination of free-market policies that can include reducing trade barriers, deregulating order to attract foreign companies, increase production and trade, privatize state-owned enterprises, devalue their own currency, and cut public sector jobs and funding. (Whirled Bank) SAPs intentions are to increase private investment from international corporations and make the recipient country more competitive in the macro worldwide economy. (Bretton Woods Projects) SAPs are policies that allow the recipient country to receive conventional loans that have stipulations if not paid back to the IMF and WB. 

Structural Adjustment Programs have rarely ever delivered on their promises and oftentimes end up exacerbating the difficulties in “developing” countries. The Journal of Black Studies published an article that focused on the negatives of SAPs on the people of the country they are attempting to help. Maclean Geo-Jaja and Garth Mangum published the article and discussed the undesirable outcomes of  SAPs as, “ Even worse, the available evidence suggests that they (SAPs) have accentuated the deterioration in the human condition and further compounded the already poor economic conditions.”. One of the primary negatives of SAPs comes from the policies that focus on cutting public spending and programs. By decreasing the funding of the public sector and programs the people of the country are harmed, loose jobs, worse healthcare, less equality and so much more. Paying back the loans takes priority over the wellbeing of the pole. This usually leads to an increase in poverty and a decrease in wellbeing. UNICEF’s Adjustment with a Human Face study found that in countries that received Structural Adjustment Loans from the IMF and WB have suffered in health, education, and nutrition. There was also a study in the Biomedical Central Journal that produced findings that SAPs negatively affected vulnerable populations, especially through maternal and child health. Another major concern with SAPs is that conditional loans are often viewed as a tool to promote neocolonialism. The recipient countries must develop in a way that benefits “developed” western powers and they are usually unable to pay back their loans and therefore indebted to these countries. This debt is a form of debt-trap diplomacy. This power dynamic harkens back to colonialism and overall benefits those in power.  


There are many negative side effects of Structural Adjustment Programs and many critics believe that these effects are the goals of these loans from the IMF and WB. John Perkins is the author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman. This a semi-autobiographical book that focuses on predatory capitalism and corporate and how SAPs are related. Perkins discusses the system of SAPs that begins with conditional loans being offered to “developing” countries. They must implement policies that benefit the wealthiest countries. The money from the loans goes back into the United States through US corporation being hired as the contractors for the development. However, as mentioned before, the policies inevitable do not grow the economy enough and therefore they default on their loans. This leaves the recipient country indebted to the United States and other powerful countries through the IMF and WB. The recipient country to pay back their debt, often allow access to their natural resources for cheap, land for military bases, corporations are allowed to operate within the country. The Western Countries have political influence within the country and voting support in international institutions. In his book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman Perkins discusses in detail the similarity between SAPs and colonialism, this quote illustrates the vast similarities, “In my opinion, the difference between the crusaders and us was a matter of degree. Europe's medieval Catholics claimed their goal was to save Muslims from purgatory; we claimed that we wanted to help the Saudis modernize. ” Perkins believes that the countries that the IMF and WB decide to help develop are ones in which they have identified resources that they hope to obtain. 

According to the book Dark Victory: The US, Structural Adjustment, and Global Poverty, over 70 countries have undergone structural adjustment programs through 566 IMF and WB programs. Most of the countries reside in the global South. Ghana is used as an example by the IMF and WB as a success story, however, conditions have gotten worse in the country. There has been development in the country and economic growth but this does not mean that wellbeing in the country has increased. The primary goal through SAPs was to eradicate poverty. This has failed because poverty has increased since the policies have been implemented. The minimum wage has increased but because prices are indicated by the market the costs of goods and services increased as well, essentially canceling out the minimum wage. The distribution of money in Ghana continued to be fragmented due to geographical isolation. There was also an increase in unemployment because of the loss of jobs in government and public services. (Eboe Hutchful) The cut in funding of public services and the privatization of goods and services led to a decrease in wellbeing. Ghanaians now have to pay for healthcare and water due to the IMF’s priority of privatization. (Kiguel and Jones) Water being privatized led to the lack of access to clean drinking water due to cost which has led to major health concerns in the country. There is also the major environmental degradation that has taken place due to the extraction of natural resources, unsustainable development, and growth in industry. Ghana has not benefited from SAPs and there has been a major decrease in wellbeing. 

Structural Adjustment Programs are not the most effective option to fund the development of countries through loans. Risk assessments are not developed to understand how unsafe and risky a certain activity is. “Instead, they are developed primarily to estimate how much of a hazardous substance or activity does not pose a risk for living organisms out in the real world.” (O’Brien) SAPs are being implemented because supposedly the benefits outweigh the costs. Risk assessments are able to be manipulated because of those who want them implemented to fund the assessment. They are very easy to manipulate and can provide whatever the desired outcome is. Alternatives assessment examines what is the best option for the problem at hand by reviewing all of the alternatives and allowing public participation. By allowing and promoting alternatives assessment the best form of developing environmentally and socioeconomically will be implemented versus finding out how bad SAPs are. 

Kenya was one of the first countries to undergo Structural Adjustment Programs in 1981. During the time of SAPs being implemented in the country, much like Ghana, the country did not thrive and overall well being decreased. In 2007, Kenya ended these programs and sought an alternative. The country adopted in 2007, free-market policy reform. The country began implemented policies that allowed the domestic sector to protected and to flourish in order to become domestically competitive. This was through funding the domestic sector and protecting from international competition through import taxes and trade restrictions. The focus was on the agriculture sector because 75% of Kenyans were employed in the agriculture sector. During when SAPs were taking place, there was a major loss in jobs and production agriculture because the programs favored “developed” countries imported food. Kenya, post-2007, policies focused on protecting and promoting small farms. This led to an increase in food security and the standard of living in the country. The primary alternative ways instead of trying to develop and become competitive by opening up markets to the global economy, Kenya focused on becoming domestically competitive by investing in themselves and then eventually opening the market to the global economy once already competitive. Kenya found an alternative to SAPs that has greatly benefitted them much more so than they had been previously. 

Kenya found an alternative to Structural Adjustment Programs and through alternatives assessment, many other countries could find ways in which to develop that best suits them. The first step of alternatives assessment is identifying that not all countries can and should have to develop in the same way. SAPs have primarily one way in which all countries must develop. Another alternative would be making sure that the loans are not conditional and hold countries beholden to the IMF and WB. Programs that help countries develop should aim at benefiting the countries that are developing not the “developed” powerful countries. The way in which countries develop should be holistic and focus on the environment, social and economic factors not just macroeconomics. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals offer seventeen goals that are potential policies that could be implemented within a country. There should be insitions other than the IMF and WB that lend money to countries to develop but without the focus on neoliberal principles. Alternatives assessments allow for the best option to be implemented and SAPs are not the best solution to development and should be evaluated for better alternatives. 

Structural Adjustment Programs were created through neoliberal principles through the Bretton Woods “twins” the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. SAPs are conditional loans that in the end benefit the powerful “developed” countries while decreasing the wellbeing in the recipient country. This can be seen in Kenya, Ghana and the 70 other countries who have undergone Structural Adjustment Reform. SAPs are not the best option for development and at its core exploits “developing” countries. Through alternatives assessment, the best solution would be found that would address the roots of the issue through just distribution, efficient allocation and sustainable development. Structural Adjustment Programs cause economic instability, decrease in well being and environmental degradation and therefore alternatives must be examined and implemented.