Do you think there needs to be a compromise between money making and conserving the environment?

Question

Do you think there needs to be a compromise between money making and conserving the environment?

Answer 1

There is no choice but to make some compromises. Humans use money as an exchange of time/services/products; in order to live. Either we all stop living or we make compromises. The problem is greed in developed countries, we exploit the environment and other people in less developed countries. There are finite resources. Permaculture ethics of Earth Care, People Care and Fair Shares address the very essence of your question: How do we look after the earth, the people and ensure everybody's needs are met? The answer is personal responsibility, making money is needed to sustain life, however spending too money is usually the quickest way to damaging the natural environment. Limit your consumption of everything is the message.

Answer 2

Barring some sort of big efficiency break-through, there would have to be.

And I have a feeling that conservation will not win this particular struggle.

It's one of the things that make me worry about the future.

Answer 3

There is a difference between being an entrepreneur and being greedy.  Greed is seldom good for the environment.  Although many businesses, as currently managed, may have detrimental impacts to the environment, most can be managed in an environmentally sensitive manner, and many businesses can promote environmental health if encouraged by consumers to do so.

Answer 4

Here is a prime example, E Coli contaminated spinach, a few deaths, a California Governor, the Owners of California's Largest Water Distribution System, and Recycled Water.  Big Money & Water. God help us all  they have their hands on the Spigot too. visit here  http://www.vitabrewcoffee.com/germanator...

Answer 5

Good question Peter.  The answer is "NO". Two questions for you, Peter.  First, do you know anybody who would like to save money at the pump, on gas and diesel, while lowering harmful emissions?  If a company actually had a product which could lower harmful emissions and improve mileage, and you could make some money, possibly a lot of money,  do you think that would be a good business idea? Find out more info @ [e-mail].

Answer 6

this is a difficult situation because both are necessary for the human race. in terms of multinationals and money making, this I think is over the top. however, the term *money making* can also be applied to those in developing nations who really dont care about the environment - their first and primary concern is how to feed their family that night. it is almost impossible to ask tthem to think about conservation when they're simply thinking about survivol. on the other hand, there wont be any survivol if the environment itself is unable to sustain human population. a balance needs to be found between the two which is hard.

Answer 7

Absolutely.

Poverty is also a bad environment.  Many studies show that it kills people.

Once you get above poverty, though, the environment deserves a lot of consideration.

Just as poverty is a bad environment, a bad environment is not a good place to make money.  The US realized that a long time ago.  China is starting to realize that.

Trying to decide where the proper balance is, is a problem that we'll just have to live with.

Answer 8

There already is. Our water and air are much cleaner than 40 years ago. It is because compromises were made. Industry is doing a much better job now.

The primary cause of pollution is the increase in population and the products and services they demand. I feel we need to focus on conservation at the demand end. We need smaller cars, More public transportation, smaller more efficient housing, etc,

Answer 9

No. Without saving the environment, the resources for making money would run out. So the environment should be preserved even if it means keeping or making less money.

.

Answer 10

yes.