In order to save the environment, we need to sacrifice economy growth, do you agree friends?

Question

In order to save the environment, we need to sacrifice economy growth, do you agree friends?

Answer 1

not exactly, theres nothin worth sacrificing economy growth!

Answer 2

What does it mean by saving environment? is the first point to be asked. One cannot go at zero pollution levels now. The solution is that we have to seek for a level of compromise between economic growth and environmental protection.

Answer 3

The environment does not need to be saved!  Al gore and his friends are lying!

Answer 4

Sustainable development is the need of the hour......Sustainable development is defined as balancing the fulfilment of human needs with the protection of the natural environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future......it means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Thus to save the environment it is not necessary to sacrifice our economic growth but it is necessary to adapt our economic growth in order to protect the environment.

For example, we need electricity on a daily basis. This electricity can be produced in the environmentally friendly method using renewable sources of energy like sunlight, wind and water through solar panels, wind mills and hydroelectric power stations. This protects the environment unlike the commonly used thermal power stations that utilise fossil fuels and produce high amounts of CO2. Thus through simple changes in the direction of development, we can enjoy growth and a good environment.

And if you are wondering how can a single unimportant individual make a change?? Let me tell you, you don't need to be the president to take a decision about how your electricity is produced. If you the consumer, refuse to buy or utilise electricity produced through non sustainable methods, the producers are forced to change their methods of production.

The economy functions when products that are produced are sold........If no one is willing to buy the product then no one will produce it.

But that does not mean that there will not be any products produced.

Thus sustainable development = economic prosperity + development + healthy environment.

Answer 5

No, not really. There would definatly be costs. An the transition, from energy from oil to other sources, would be felt. There would be a new sector, and new technologies. This would lead to new avenues, perhaps even a more efficient energy system thaatw would allow money to be used elsewhere. I think that the costs of not doing anything now far outweighs the price of acting.

Here is a link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096...

Answer 6

You make an excellent point, that no one wants to hear.  I think we're past the point of no return.  We are indeed going to significantly reduce the economic growth (and, quality of life), or we need to dramatically reduce the world's population.

Answer 7

Its called ecological sustainable development.  The development of resources and economies in such a way that maintains economic and environmental sustainability as well as social and cultural values and integrity.  It sounds wishy washy and it is but it forces the government to act in a way in which economic growth minimizes its impact on the environment without compromising social or cultural integrity.  For this to work a value has to be placed on environment or biodiversity and social and cultural outcomes.  This is where governments stuff up because their is no way they can do this objectively given the emphasis of gov on economy and growth.

Answer 8

disagree, and any one who agrees obviously lives in a cave in Anartica.

Answer 9

No.... Ecology is big business.  The company that developes the best alternative to gasoline with be wealthiest of all and will need lots of employees.  Recylcing is big business - the more things that can be made from Trash, then the more jobs are created.

What will happen is more and more companies will be created to specifically deal with environment issues and they will be a big success.

While the companies that pollute will no longer be popular, and will fail because people won't want to use their products.

Answer 10

Hey that's a good idea . Take all the rich peoples money from them . I cant afford to buy allot of things so it must be them increasing the economy growth correct?

Better yet charge the rich triple of what something is worth and take the money to feed the people who lost there jobs because we had to sacrifice economy growth.

Answer 11

NO!

In many cases, saving the environment means being more efficient - with fuel, or materials - and that saves money!

In other cases, the environment provides services that are cheaper than when we have to provide them ourselves. For instance, if you don't pollute the water or cut down a forest that keeps the water clean, you won't have to spend so much money on water filtration plants and such.

When you add up the hidden costs, environmentalist comes out ahead.

Answer 12

I tend to agree. I see no way we can continue with our greedy expansion of population and more of everything for everyone. Investment in environmental friendly industry, products, and services can help, but I don't believe that revenue can completely replace the income from our economic growth.

I hope I am wrong, because I don't believe the general population around the world will voluntarily reduce expansion which means many could suffer. Look at the world now. Everyone everywhere just wants MORE of everything.