What are the reasons our nation can not balance conservation with economic progress?

Question

I need to know the negative side of this issue.

Answer 1

Big problem: The long-standing belief by many business executives that anything relating to conservation is bad for business because it costs too much money and has no positive return for the company.

That's totally wrong, but that has been a prevailing belief for many decades.

The reasons are simple. For the longest time the raw pieces of production have been cheap, so there was no incentive to be efficient. If, for instance, it costs $1,000 to save 100 kilowatt hours of energy in a year, but 100 kilowatt hours only costs $32.18, a company might not have an incentive to cut energy consumption.

Some of those elements are becoming less cheap and some have become outright expensive, but it is tough to overcome decades of ingrained thinking. (Or lack of thinking, as the case may be.)

One of the challenges for U.S. business is that while there is now a cost (through government regulations) for conservation, that doesn't apply in a lot of countries where companies compete with the U.S. That means it might be significantly cheaper to make a foofram in Malaysia, for instance, than it is in Michigan. Which is why all the foofram factories in Kalamazoo have closed and everyone is buying cheap fooframs from Malaysia.

It isn't an easy problem to solve.

Answer 2

These two items are almost unrelated. In the last 30 years there has been big improvements in conservation while the economy has fluctuated considerably. Conservation costs money initially but almost always saves money in the long term.

Answer 3

From the very beginning we have exploited our natural resources for financial gain.  Our government even subsidizes practices that are environmentally unsound, like not charging enough for mining rights, and allowing cattle to graze on public lands.  The almighty dollar rules in this country, and most people cannot see the long term consequences of their actions.

Answer 4

it is very simple.....

economic progress gives to people more acquisitive power, more money to spend, more people with more money means more consumption of all kinds of resources, water, energy, cars, food, tools, toys, TV`s, and guess what? more consumption means less conservation.....

the engine of all economies in the world is the increasing consume of goods and services.....

all goods come from nature, from natural resources some renewable some not, if everyone increase the consumption of renewable resources, the pressure on that resource it willl be so intense that it wil trespass his threshold and become scarce and non renewable......

we need to find an economic system able to survive and bring good life quality to everyone with no growth......

that's the challenge right now.....

Answer 5

current mainstream economic thought equates continuing growth with economic progress. you can see this in the importance of reports on an ever-increasing gross national product.  growth requires production and that requires natural resources.

it is impossible to constantly increase production without also increasing the resources that make the production possible.  therefore it is impossible to use less (conserve) resources.

efficiency is not the same as conservation but is a way to produce the same amount of work or energy or stuff by using a system that uses less resources but generally that requires an investment in new, more efficient technologies and the increased cost of the investment lowers the return to investors.  this is not what corporations are all about.

even when they realize that their methods of production are eventually leading to a dead end, the quest for short term gain leads many corporations and their investors to mortgage the future for return today.

too bad if your in the next or a subsequent generation!!!

Answer 6

MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!  here are three reasons....money can buy off politicians to sway the ideas toward the abusers way, money makes better campaign propaganda, money pays off those who would tell the truth.  I think the list could go on but I think you get the picture.

Answer 7

here's a fine example ...Berkeley. ca

wants to be green.

wants to increase revenues by adding more parking meters.

duh.

Answer 8

Quite simply, GREED.  The misconception that conservation is not cost efficient or profitable.  It is.