There's so much I want to say, but check my current debate for more on my standing. I find this issue very interesting and I'm trying to find answers and understanding. Please vote and leave your opinion, I will read all of them to learn something. That will be awesome! Thanks.
Statistically speaking, the more an economy prospers, the less harm it does to be ecosystem per person. Less developed economies release far more CO2 and is much more dependent on harmful energy sources.
You think it's better to focus on the ecosystem more, but it's literally a case where if you focus on one, both fail, but if you focus on the other, both succeed. Harming the economy will only make it deadlier to the ecosystem. Advancement and progress is the only possible way to make an eco-friendly economy.
Really, it seems that nowadays everything needs money to survive and i'll say tht environment protection is not excluded. To regrown a forest, we will need experts and they don't come for free. Also, we need technology to do all this environment protection stuffs. We need researches and stuffs. You cannot do all these things by just having love towards nature. Maybe u can try, but the risks of failure would be very big.
Its cool bruh njrtji g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g gg g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
Who da fuck cares about da fucking environment? All we want is money. Even if the earth gets destroyed we need money to go to space and live on another mother fucking planet. In fact fuck all you bitches and your ass crap environment. I want all da money
FUCK POVERTY MOTHER-FUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like money way more than donkeys. Get rid of all of the donkeys and give me money and I will be happy. The environment is bad, money is good. One source for the fact that donkeys are smelly is if you have ever been to a zoo you would know they smell like they poop in the same place they are kept.
I guess I'm mixed on this situation. On the one hand, I agree with the negation to a certain extent. We do need to protect our environment, or else our lives will be spent living in a polluted land. However, I don't think it should be protected at the expense of having an overstepping agency (the EPA) restricting economic prosperity with their federal regulations. Leave it up to the states.
We have already wasted and destroyed vast amounts of natural resources, and in so doing have put earth at risk. We must preserve the earth for our children and grandchildren. In any case, poverty and environmental damage are often linked. Destroying the rainforest gives native peoples nowhere to go except urban slums. Polluted water can lead to crop failures. Climate change will turn fertile fields into desert and flood coastal areas where hundreds of millions live. Developing countries have to choose sustainable development if they want a future for their people.
Nations are losing more from pollution than they are gaining from industrialisation. China is a perfect example. Twenty years of uncontrolled economic development have created serious, chronic air and water pollution. This has increased health problems and resulted in annual losses to farmers of crops worth billions of dollars. So uncontrolled growth is not only bad for the environment, it is also makes no economic sense.
As long as we value wealth and acquisition above all else, humanity will continue to progress towards it's own demise.
We, in the industrialized world have been raised from birth to believe that our possessions, conveniences and indulgences determine our well-being. More importantly we operate under the delusion that we are "better off" if we are "better off" than others. Economic prosperity is relative and selfish by nature and it invariably comes at the expense of the natural world.
We may never come to the collective understanding that we are all one with this planet, but until we do our odds of survival as a species continues to diminish.
How about teaching our children that the best choices promote our mutual well-being in harmony with planet.
Investing in science and environmental protection helps the economy, which helps replace the economic prosperity lost by placing regulations on businesses that prevent them from slowly killing us, so I don't truly believe that these two things are conflicting interests. Secondly, even if we could only have one or the other - economic prosperity or environmental stability - environmental stability would still be the better choice. In the scenario that the environment cannot survive economic prosperity, choosing economic stability ends in the death of all life on earth. In the scenario that the economy cannot survive environmental protection, choosing environmental protection ends in the collapse of the economy. For arguments sake, lets say all humans suffer and die. That still leaves many, many, many protected species of non-human life on Earth. At the most basic level of this argument, the death of all humans through environmental protection is still surely better than the death of all life on earth through lack of environmental protection/economic prosperity. That said, the argument is far more complicated (and slanted to favor the environmental protection side of things) because we can't be sure that environmental protection above the economy would end in the collapse of said economy, or that they are truly competing interests, yet scientists are pretty positive that lack of environmental protection would lead to the collapse of our climate system and the death of almost all or all life on Earth.
Whether we like it or not, we all depend on natural resources to survive and the availability of these resources depends on equilibrium in the environment. As in there is no point in an economy (whose sole purpose is to keep people alive) if the way we are treating the environment we depend on is not life-friendly and results in illness or death.
Also, add in the fact that we are not the only living things on this planet-- plants, animals, and fungi are all living and their well being should be protected and respected.
Hdhdbh . . Z z z z z z d d f f g. G g g g g g. G f f f f. G f f g g g g. G g f t. T g g f f. T f f f. T f f f. Ff
If you don't take care of the environment what the fuck will you do with economic prosperity. The earth is much more important than your fucking money. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .
Although a balance between economy and environment is needed, the belief that the economy is of equal importance as the invironmebt is infantile. Once a good economy is established nations tend to suddenly get great awareness of their own environment and outsource many of their resources, but this is too little too soon. Growing nations should focus on their environment because as we have seen in many growing nations such as China, if a nation does not prioritize its environment irreversible changes and snagged will be made.
We can't be greedy and impatient and demand that economic prosperity is more important than environmental sustainability. Think about the long term consequences of our actions if we neglect our environment all for the sake of money and current comfortability. Just like we have done with financial institutions we need to invest in protecting the environment, and not just our assets. It'll be a dark, miserable day when we find out we have all the profit in the world yet realize we trashed our planet and sickened other peoples lives.
Should we destroy our economy and outlaw the burning of fossil fuels - no. Can we accept a few less jobs and some slower GDP growth to save the planet? Hell yes. I work in insurance and wonder what kind of an ROI Deniers would be willing to pay to insure the Planet's survival. I believe its 100% guaranteed but deniers may say there's only a 10% chance of that happening. Well if the worst case scenarios cost $500 Trillion dollars then a 9% investment would return a positive ROI on the 10% likelyhood. Sooo. $9% of 500 Trillion is 45 Trillion so thats what they should be willing to spend. Simple math. I, on th eotherhand would say $500 Trillion to avert that outcome is a steal.
If we have a robust economy which will go bust in 20 years, we're just kicking the can down the road until we're old enough to pretend we didn't do it.
That's what the baby boomers did. That's what their parents did. This country has been run by right-wing reactionary fools since the 1950s.
If we destroy our environment, it won't matter if we had decade or two of booming economic progress.
Additionally, the vast majority of wealth generated in the last 20 years was accumulated by those with the most capital already.
The health of our economy cannot be judged by GDP or stock growth. It must be judged by the number of sustainable, profitable manufacturers and producers operating IN THE COUNTRY. Not abroad.