|
The answer is simple. What economy is there without the environment? What kind of economy can there
be with a bad environment. Our economy is dependent on our environment. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If we look at China today, we see that strong economic growth is clearly compatible with great
damage to the environment - at least in the short to medium term. Beyond localized environmental
damage, however, we now have to consider the global effects of our industrial pollution. It's clear
that our emissions have now created a global warming crisis which poses a grave threat to our entire
civilization.
Yes, tackling it will require a diminution of economic growth in the short and medium term. If we do
not tackle it, however, twenty feet of seawater will affect our economic growth prospects severely
70 years or so from now. Those who focus only on the short term economic effects of environmentally
responsible policies are blind fools who are leading the world into perdition. Unfortunately, they
are in the majority. We will perish through our own selfishness and lack of foresight. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This one is hard to argue because the economy and environment of all countries are inextricably
linked.
Resource extraction fuels the world’s economies -- be it timber, minerals, fresh water, hunting of
game and fishing, or drilling for oil. All damage or upset the balance of the environment to a
degree.
Habitat loss to over development (especially in the western U.S. And sub-Saharan Africa) is causing
a record number of plant and species to go extinct. Even the building of private homes -- to house
workers and consumers -- negatively affects the environment.
Modern humanity has lost sight of the meaning of “If you soil your own bed, you’ll have to lie
in it.” The Earth can only heal itself so much, and if we don’t heed that limit, economies will
collapse. This happened on Easter Island, to the American Southwest’s Anasazi, and to Central
America’s Mayans, all due to deforestation. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
In the long-term, we certainly cannot sustain our industrialized, western economies and our high
standard of living if we neglect the environment. Nevertheless, if I were to choose between living
in a country that offers good economic opportunities and a high quality of life in the short-term,
and a nation that boasts a progessive environmental model, but suffers from high unemployment, a
shrinking economy, deteriorating quality of life and few future prospects, then I would choose a
good economy over a sound "green" policy in a heartbeat.
We cannot avoid talking about the economic impact that the implementation of strict environmental
policies may have in the short-term. For example, many countries that originally agreed to the Kyoto
Protocol only recently realized that if they were to try to reach emission targets by the set
deadlines, they would effectively cripple their nation's industrial sector. Even the staunchest
environmentalists would think long and hard about whether they would be willing to give up their job
security and sacrifice their financial prospects in order to save the planet. In the end, the vast
majority of people would side with maintaining economic growth, even if this limits their ability to
improve the environment. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
30 Mar 2008 05:29
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
