Environment vs. Economy Options

[*Kathleen*]

being a border line hippie, i choose the environment. there are so many ways to avoid destruction of the environment, it just costs more. i dno't think this is a debate to be won.

Do you realize that more people die from the poor economies of their governments opposed to how many die from environment-related issues?

[ComradeRed]

Do you realize that more people die from the poor economies of their governments opposed to how many die from environment-related issues?

But how can you be sure that prioritizing economic growth will actually lead to economic growth and the alleviation of these disesase? Don't the poor in most thidr rworld countries rely directly on the environment to meet their basic needs?

[*Kathleen*]

But how can you be sure that prioritizing economic growth will actually lead to economic growth and the alleviation of these disesase? Don't the poor in most thidr rworld countries rely directly on the environment to meet their basic needs?

Well, when you focus on something, it usually does lead to your goal. Besides, where would they get the money to keep repairing their own environment?

[EmeraldKnight]

haha this topic reminds me of policy debate this year.. see, either we'd screw their plan over on economics or we'd screw them over on environment, cuz its just not possible to fully compromise, we dont live in an idealistic world, it has to be one or the other.. but you can't just pick one in general.. it depends on the situation..

Sure, if the government can afford it, they should focus on environment, because thats what matters in the long run, but considering the current fiscal crisis in the united states right now, with a project $521 billion deficit, i think we can afford to put off the environment for now, more than we can afford to put off economics.. and luckily the judges thought so too

I guess what i'm trying to say is (cuz i cannot be concise if my life depended on it..) that there is no universal priority, it depends on the current situation and which needs more attention at the current moment

[stryker76]

I hope you people know that plants respire (I'm using the biology term. "repire" here does NOT mean "breathe in and out") just like us - they use oxygen to convert glucose into energy and give off carbon dioxide. Especially at night when there is no sunlight, plants behave just like us, taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. So in effect, planting a tree may not change anything at all - photosynthesis may produce oxygen, but if we compare the volume of oxygen the tree has produced during it's lifetime with the volume of carbon dioxide it produced via respiration and during it's decomposition after it's death, the net difference may be negligible. Significant differences are seen when there are a vast number of plants - like the rainforests.

WHOA hold on here...please no false info...no offence i truly do not mean to be rude but plants us CO2 to make there good...the waste of the metabolic process is O2(oxygen) we breathe because of plants...and plants survive because of heterotrophs breathing out CO2....i just wanted to point that out sorry if i offended ne one it was not intentional...im just testin my self for my Bio exam at the end of the year

[EmeraldKnight]

WHOA hold on here...please no false info...no offence i truly do not mean to be rude but plants us CO2 to make there good...the waste of the metabolic process is O2(oxygen) we breathe because of plants...and plants survive because of heterotrophs breathing out CO2....i just wanted to point that out sorry if i offended ne one it was not intentional...im just testin my self for my Bio exam at the end of the year

lol thank you for that clarification, now would someone like to respond to the topic?

[tkproduce]

WHOA hold on here...please no false info...no offence i truly do not mean to be rude but plants us CO2 to make there good...the waste of the metabolic process is O2(oxygen) we breathe because of plants...and plants survive because of heterotrophs breathing out CO2....i just wanted to point that out sorry if i offended ne one it was not intentional...im just testin my self for my Bio exam at the end of the year

Yes, photosynthesis that occurs in plants is a process of converting carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen using light energy from the sun. However, don't forget that plants also need to respire (convert glucose into energy) as well, which is a process of converting ADP into ATP using glucose and oxygen, releasing carbon dioxide and water as byproducts of the reaction. This isn't FALSE info, I'm just clarifying the misconception in most people that all plants do is take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen and animals do the opposite. In fact plants do both.

[EmeraldKnight]

Maybe we should have a separate debate on the legitimacy of the information presented...

[tkproduce]

Maybe we should have a separate debate on the legitimacy of the information presented...

well, you can't really debate over a FACT, because the conclusion will come way too quickly.

[EmeraldKnight]

Then can we please get back on topic?

[*Kathleen*]

That would be nice.

See I'm mainly for the economy simply because you need money to help the envrionment in the first place. On the other hand, the environment can't help the economy. Also, I remember when I researched this topic that our natural resources aren't running as low as you think they are. If I find an example or fact, I'll get back to you on that.

[EmeraldKnight]

See I'm mainly for the economy simply because you need money to help the envrionment in the first place. On the other hand, the environment can't help the economy. Also, I remember when I researched this topic that our natural resources aren't running as low as you think they are. If I find an example or fact, I'll get back to you on that. 

Well... i just did policy debate last week.. one of our evidence cards said that invasive species brought in by ballast water (the case we ran), costs our government $138 billion at year to clean up, so if that isnt a reason to protect the environment and pass regulations, i dont know what is

[ComradeRed]

Well, when you focus on something, it usually does lead to your goal. Besides, where would they get the money to keep repairing their own environment?

Since this resolution applies universally, it logically also applies to First World nations, who thus have an obligation to help the third world protect their environments.

Just trying something doesn't guarantee that you'll get it, especailly since most ppl in third world countries rely directly on the environment for their basic needs, so you actually cannot fulfill basic needs on the negative.

[Spirited Away]

That would be nice.

See I'm mainly for the economy simply because you need money to help the envrionment in the first place. On the other hand, the environment can't help the economy. Also, I remember when I researched this topic that our natural resources aren't running as low as you think they are. If I find an example or fact, I'll get back to you on that.

Ah, but the environment can help the economy, of course, not as much as the economy can help it.

You wouldn't buy a house if it's built near a polluted water source or settle close to a congested freeway. Why? You wouldn't want to breathe in smelly water and air nor would you want your house to be infested by rats... The house that you would not buy then, results as a loss. The economy is not allocating its resources very efficiently if it produces something, and the output is not being used.

Each year, millions of American enjoy hunting, camping, outdoor recreational activities. You see, the environment IS a business. You get allergies from the environment, you can get sick if you live in a polluted area... You come to doctors and buy drugs to ease your sickness which is caused by the environment...

Even though people may say that water is the utmost concern, I think that air and water are equally important in sustaining our health. Nowdays, our health can stand as a market by itself.

[shawty_redd]

i think that enviroment is more important because with out enviroment there would be no economy right??

[EmeraldKnight]

i think that enviroment is more important because with out enviroment there would be no economy right?? 

But if we dont even have the money to provide for our own people, where are we going to get the money to help the environment?

[shawty_redd]

But if we dont even have the money to provide for our own people, where are we going to get the money to help the environment?

but to make money u need the enviroment...without paper and ink, which come from enviroment, there would be no money in the first place...

[EmeraldKnight]

but to make money u need the enviroment...without paper and ink, which come from enviroment, there would be no money in the first place...

I acknowledge that.. but realize that environmental preservation and restoration takes a lot more time and effort than you may think, and strictly referring to the current US fiscal situation and the half a trillion dollar deficit, obviously we can't spare any money now to protect the environment.. maybe when times are better...

Anyways, what this argument boils down to is long term versus short term, focusing on economics rather than environment helps us in the short term but kills us in the long term, while the converse helps us in the long term but will ruin things in the short term

So, think about this, we spend a lot of resources and we protect a lot of the environment; meanwhile, our economy goes down the drain, budget cuts in education, health care, social security, because all the money is being spent on the environment, sure we'd have a cleaner environment, more resources, but our standard of living will ultimately decrease

[Spirited Away]

I wouldn't say all of our spending would need to go to the environment.

I think so long as we and big businesses are aware and careful of the situation, then we wouldn't need to worry much. If big production plants are willing (pfft.. as if) to cut down their level of production, then both the economy and environment are set...

[EmeraldKnight]

I think so long as we and big businesses are aware and careful of the situation, then we wouldn't need to worry much. If big production plants are willing (pfft.. as if) to cut down their level of production, then both the economy and environment are set...

hm.. you do have a point there.. i was thinking more of the government instituting programs.. but if by some miracle the companies start cutting down and being more environment conscious, things could improve without hurting the economy much, there'd be some inflation, but not too much

The main problem though, is that companies wont be willing to do it, its an idealistic scenario, not a realistic one.. because.. if a few companies do it, but the others do not, the environment will still be hurt and the environmentally concerned companies will also be put at a disadvantage

[Spirited Away]

The main problem though, is that companies wont be willing to do it, its an idealistic scenario, not a realistic one.. because.. if a few companies do it, but the others do not, the environment will still be hurt and the environmentally concerned companies will also be put at a disadvantage

Exactly. Why would you want to worry about the environment when you could be making more money than your competitions!

*Sigh*.

[EmeraldKnight]

Exactly. Why would you want to worry about the environment when you could be making more money than your competitions!

*Sigh*. 

Yeah.. even if the gov were to impose regulations, most likely they'd find some way around that, plus its very unlikely since these big companies are prime contributors to political campaigns... see.. idealistically, there should be a balance between environment and economy, preserving the environment enough yet prospering the economy...

unfortunately, capitalism revolves around being greedy pigs, and thus the environment suffers

cuz if we were to apply regulations, our economy would suffer from inflation and we'd end up exporting from other countries that dont care as much

[Spirited Away]

unfortunately, capitalism revolves around being greedy pigs, and thus the environment suffers

cuz if we were to apply regulations, our economy would suffer from inflation and we'd end up exporting from other countries that dont care as much

It's all up to the tree huggers to make people 'aware'.

Seriously speaking, it wouldn't be so bad though, if we were able to find a new fuel source; something to replace oil and coal.

[EmeraldKnight]

Seriously speaking, it wouldn't be so bad though, if we were able to find a new fuel source; something to replace oil and coal.

There are new fuel sources, wind, water, solar power, biomass, alternate fuel sources exist, they're just not widespread enough yet

[strice]

there is no choosing one or the other, really. if the environment goes down, the economy is screwed since resources are tougher and more expensive, and companies that damage the environment would be very unpopular. on the other hand, if the economy goes down, there'd be no money to finance protection of environment and such.