Whats the point in having economy if you have no environment?

 

That question asked I think a balance is necessary as is the case in most things.

Both are of the same importance.

Whats the point in having economy if you have no environment?

 

That question asked I think a balance is necessary as is the case in most things.

575561[/snapback]

What's the point of living in a nice environment even though you have no economy whatsoever?

 

A bum could live in a beautiful park, but he is still a bum. The beauty of the park doesn't put food on the table, or provide a table for that matter.

if you like money go for economy

 

if you like your children to be able to breathe in the future choose enviroment

 

 

I choose enviroment

Some of you are acting like the only way for people to have lives and a society to have any sustinence is to destroy the enviroment. Industrialization can occur without a destroying the enviroment. Its called asking business to be responsible. A lot of companies think long term viability and this usually involves making sure they dont destroy the enviorment. A lot of companies realize that they have a responsibility to their nation and the rest of the planet. The problem comes when people think only short term profits and personal greed. Think Enron.

 

I know there is a clash between developing nations and the enviroment, but there doesnt neccessarily have to be. The massive destruction of the rainforest has much more to do with greed than the viability of those nations.

 

I gave the earlier example of New Orleans. The shipping industry idnt like the nagging Mississippi costing them money each year so they pushed for altering the natural levies and for flood control. In doing so, they destroyed a natural sediment system that regulated the Gulf of Mexico from flooding the Mississippi delta. Now gulf has been moving closer and closer each year and will take in New Orleans in 100 years. Itll be extremely difficult to fix and who knows what else they cause in trying. And for what? Economic progress?

like i said doods.

 

 

 

sustainable development.

 

 

brings you the best of both worlds.

Whats the point in having economy if you have no environment?

 

That question asked I think a balance is necessary as is the case in most things.

575561[/snapback]

What's the point of living in a nice environment even though you have no economy whatsoever?

 

A bum could live in a beautiful park, but he is still a bum. The beauty of the park doesn't put food on the table, or provide a table for that matter.

575845[/snapback]

Your logic is killing me here J. You can live without an ecnomoy, but without environment (ie earth) you have nothing. A balance needs to be struck.

Whats the point in having economy if you have no environment?

 

That question asked I think a balance is necessary as is the case in most things.

575561[/snapback]

What's the point of living in a nice environment even though you have no economy whatsoever?

 

A bum could live in a beautiful park, but he is still a bum. The beauty of the park doesn't put food on the table, or provide a table for that matter.

575845[/snapback]

Your logic is killing me here J. You can live without an ecnomoy, but without environment (ie earth) you have nothing. A balance needs to be struck.

575894[/snapback]

I concur, which is why I countered your statement with an extreme opposite. Obviously both are important, but economy gets a slight nod IMO. Gotta watch out for both though, obviously.

It may sound foolish and whimsical, but eventually wont they be able simply send the worlds trash flying into the sun?

 

The explanation Ive heard has to do with energy and that it would take a lot of it to beat earths orbit or something. Basically making sure the trash doesnt go tangental to orbit. Ive also heard that it would be easy to send trash into outer space though. There sure is a lot out there.

 

They arent going to have fossil fuels around forever let alone the luxury of emmisions. I for one wonder the reality of nuclear power. Is it really as bad as it is made out to be and cant we take care of nuclear waste the same way we could trash, ie outer space or the sun? The biggest problem right now is getting nuclear waste taken care of. I dont like ideas like Yucca mountain ie putting it in the earth. Wouldnt nuclear power also solve a lot of problems of developing nations who wouldnt have to burn fossil fuels?

 

The sun thing reminds me of something else. A lot of the worlds problems could be solved if they could just discover a universal energy source. I dont know how close or how impossible they are with that one. Not only would that cut out pollution but it would probably feed the earth and save a lot of trees by allowing for accelerated timber and crops.

 

Just need to figure that fusion stuff out.

Of course the biggest problem with the nuclear stuff is its use for bombs

The real question is - how much of a lowered technological standard of living and increased costs are people willing to accept to create a closed loop/sustainable process? Do not kid yourselves - the overall apparent standard of living WILL have to go down to attain it and costs WILL have to go up. We will have to stop filling landfills with things like 4 year old computers and video games, reduce use of one-shot products (styrofoam food containers for example), etc.

575989[/snapback]

 

 

 

that's not necessarily true from a technological standpoint.

 

 

 

and i'll talk about styrofoam sometime tomorrow, it ranks up there with SUVs as the most riduclious things in our world.

The environment is defintely important and so is economic development. In fact a true capitalist should also be an environmentalist, because no resources no capital. How to deal with environmental issues is where the crossroads lie. I believe govt intervention has done more bad than good to preserve the environment, and that instead of penalizing bad corporations, we can start by rewarding the good ones with thing ssuch as tax breaks for companies that meet environmental guidlines. Almost no businessman will turn down that offer, plus the tax break needs to be greater than what is spent on manking the business environmentally friendly. I mean im jus tthrowing ideas in here, but govt needs to stay out

obviously you know little about new renewable fuel sources being developed or already developed and remain in the only way to obtain energy is via non-renewable sources.

there are numerous reasons why they are not implemented.

 

 

in the short term they are more expensive.

 

 

in the long term they are much cheaper. few companies have the capital or the caring to transfer their systems to those of renewable energy.

 

 

and joe blow is too stupid to care, he is spoon fed all this crap about how non-renewable sources are getting cleaner and all...and few are even aware of the beneifts of renewable sources of energy....