Serious Protecting the environment and/or protecting the economy

[BenTheDemon]

We've all had to answer this question at one point or another.
Should we avoid buying crude oil products? Should we all go solar? Or should we just ignore it because it keeps the money machine going? Or maybe it's just too expensive?
Post your opinions here.

 

[vonFiedler]

Sounds like kind of a loaded question to me.

 

[Celever]

IMO the economy has sunk so far that there's no saving it now. If we save the environment the water levels will go down a little and then we can fish the economy back up.

 

[BenTheDemon]

Then allow me to present the counterargument:
I once heard on FOX News (not very credible, I know) about a farmer that couldn't farm somewhere because he would be harming an endangered fish.
So he had to compromise a good harvest to protect the fish.

That's not compelling to a big hippie like me, but the counterargument nonetheless exists.

 

[whistle]

Silly question - obviously oil/gas/coal are not going away, and neither is the pressing environmental issue. It's easy to pretend it's all-or-nothing due to the historical narrative of global warming, but realistic (politically viable) solutions will almost certainly be a compromise. Pushing for clean energy is sexy, but based on market shares and solar panel tech, engaging the "evil" CO2 emitters is also a very important goal (through carbon capture/sequestration, etc). Then in the long term hopefully the physics and engineering of alternative energy have caught up so that they become viable large-scale energy sources.

 

[Hidious]

You can't have an economy without an environment, so I'd have to say protecting the environment is more important. Its the amount that we need to protect is the debate. If we don't protect it at all, it will eventually lead to pollution and climate change causing starvation and the spread of disease. That isn't good for an economy. However, if we waste too many resources on "overprotecting" the environment, it can slow down the economy due to resources being invested in the wrong place. I doubt the latter is true in the present, though. The thing is that our main energy sources are not infinite. We will run out of oil, coal, and natural gas eventually. Not in the next 100 years, but in the next 200 or 300, maybe. In the next 500 years, definitely. We have to invest heavily in cleaner energies eventually. Why not now so the transition is smooth?

 

[aVocado]

It's definitely the environment. Humanity can go fuck itself in the ass, put it in the camel clutch, break it's back, make it humble.

Seriously though, my answer is the environment. Economy is man-made and can be fixed by man, even if it's hard. Environments are irreplaceable and irreversible mostly. Animals, oceans and forests are the Earth's most precious resources, and should not be harmed in any way. Humans can fuck themselves up, but they shouldn't fuck the environment or the nature up.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

I want to see anybody who voted for the environment try to buy something with a sapling next time they go to the store

 

[aVocado]

I want to see anybody who voted for economy to fix global warming.

One thing cannot exist without the other, but the environment is more important simply because organisms can't live without their respective environments.

Related:

 

[newtonja]

You can't have an economy without an environment, so I'd have to say protecting the environment is more important. Its the amount that we need to protect is the debate. If we don't protect it at all, it will eventually lead to pollution and climate change causing starvation and the spread of disease. That isn't good for an economy. However, if we waste too many resources on "overprotecting" the environment, it can slow down the economy due to resources being invested in the wrong place. I doubt the latter is true in the present, though. The thing is that our main energy sources are not infinite. We will run out of oil, coal, and natural gas eventually. Not in the next 100 years, but in the next 200 or 300, maybe. In the next 500 years, definitely. We have to invest heavily in cleaner energies eventually. Why not now so the transition is smooth?

I completely agree that an economy can't exist without enviroment. The problem is that the only reason why people buy eco friendly products is the fact it is eco friendly. right now gasoline type products outpreform eco friendly products in both price and well, preformance. What I think what will cause us to make the transition is when we prove that eco friendly devices are better than gasoline. This will be both good for the economy and the enviroment, its a win win.

Edit: by prove I mean invent products that outpreform gasoline products

 

[Shinryu]

Both isn't a reasonable answer?

 

[blitzlefan]

I voted for economy, because I believe a poor economy affects humans (what I perceive to be the most relevant) a lot more than a poor environment does. However, it depends on how "poor" is defined in this context, to which I interpret it as poor, but not past the point of no return. To be honest, I think this thread is pretty poorly written, and isn't nearly close to as descriptive as it needs to be. It also speaks in absolutes - trash the economy or trash the environment - which I think is unrealistic and unrepresentative of the question.

Also, regarding the "economy is man-made so humans can fix it" argument, if it really were so easy, we would have done it ages ago.

 

[Hidious]

Edit: by prove I mean invent products that outpreform gasoline products

Its less to outperform gasoline products, its more like oil will be extinct in the next 100 years at our current rate of consumption so we need alternatives now to slow down its depletion and demand so we don't go bat shit crazy when the oil runs out. Eco-friendly products outperform gas products if there is no gas or its way too expensive, which is certainly going to happen soon.

Also, regarding the "economy is man-made so humans can fix it" argument, if it really were so easy, we would have done it ages ago.

See Japan,USA, Germany, England, France, and China after WWII

 

[Lee]

Having spent the last year in China I am left in no doubt that nothing is worth that. I'm teaching 5-year olds and keep having to pause while some poor kid violently phlegms up and then they're not allowed to go out and play because the smog is too bad. Farmers are being forced put of business, not because of some hippy fish, but because the groundwater has become so polluted that nothing will ever grow.

I heard a brilliant quote in relation to that; 'growth at the expense of all else is the ideology of a cancer cell.'

 

[Aladyyn]

I don't think you can pick one. As most complex issues, this needs to be thought of at case-by-case basis. However I think people are overly paranoid about some environmental issues. This is alarming especially in energetics (shutting down nuclear plants is a dumb idea most of the time), as "green" sources tend to be inefficient and unreliable.

Also: yes, economy can be rebuilt. But it's gonna bring a lot of pain and suffering to the people, so it's not as easy as some people appear to think.

Also we can't "fix" global warming, it's happening no matter what we do, humans merely speed up the process (which isn't good, but there's really nothing we can do at this point, so might as well accept it).

 

[Zebstrika]

Then allow me to present the counterargument:
I once heard on FOX News (not very credible, I know) about a farmer that couldn't farm somewhere because he would be harming an endangered fish.
So he had to compromise a good harvest to protect the fish.

That's not compelling to a big hippie like me, but the counterargument nonetheless exists.

Ironically this is why endangered species lists don't work very well. If there's an endangered species on your land, and the law enforcement finds it, you gotta gtfo. And the only way to prevent it is to make sure no one finds endangered species, ie shoot them and bury them on sight.

I also think the question is a bit too absolute, I voted economy but I'll still save the environment in many circumstances.

Anyway, the main reason I voted for economy and don't really care for the environment, is that nature is really adaptable anyway. There is and has been life all over this planet, in all kinds of insane conditions, for billions of years. There have been 5 major extinctions wiping out most of the stuff on here...but still a few things slipped through the extinctions, and life once again goes on. Global warming (or climate change if you prefer, ironically warm weather can cause cold weather in certain ways) a few degrees will wipe out a few species and a few more will take their places.

The other reason is that, I'm not advocating extreme actions against the environment and we might as well save it when we have the opportunity (after all we can still kill off a few species a lot faster than those new ones will take their places), and I have faith that science will improve faster than we can trash the environment.

 

[Trax]

Economies heal, rivers on the other hand have a bit more trouble.

 

[New World Order]

Why does it have to be black and white? You need a balance of both. In some cases, it's more important to protect the environment, for example China's development is quickly turning large cities into a smog infested shithole and really should tone down on the industrialization. In other instances, it's important to sacrifice the environment for the economy, such as a region stricken by poverty that needs to exploit the environment just to get by (and sadly in most regions like this, it's other more powerful nations that exploit the resources).

 

[BenTheDemon]

I want to see anybody who voted for the environment try to buy something with a sapling next time they go to the store

Money is just what arbitrary value you put to it, whether its gold, saplings, or a number that represents a rank in society.
Hong Kong has actually started a program where recycled plastic is legal currency, which I think is an amazing idea.
I think that if in America (where I live) that we made recycled items legal currency that we could go far. I know some cities have that already, but it needs to be everywhere.

Has anyone ever seen the episode of South Park where Kyle shows how the economy is just a collective idea? It's remarkably accurate.

Anyway, the main reason I voted for economy and don't really care for the environment, is that nature is really adaptable anyway. There is and has been life all over this planet, in all kinds of insane conditions, for billions of years. There have been 5 major extinctions wiping out most of the stuff on here...but still a few things slipped through the extinctions, and life once again goes on. Global warming (or climate change if you prefer, ironically warm weather can cause cold weather in certain ways) a few degrees will wipe out a few species and a few more will take their places.

In the wise words of George Carlin, "The planet's not fucked; WE are!"
I can't speak for everyone, but I like enough people to want to keep humans alive as long as possible.

 

[Diatom]

Without the environment there will be no economy, so yeah.

 

[BenTheDemon]

Without the environment there will be no economy, so yeah.

I guess a better way to phrase the question would be, "Should we be more concerned about maximizing profits now or protecting the earth for future generations?"

 

[moonbound]

It's not as simple as fix the environment first because we have no way of doing that. Even if we did, we'd have to police the rest of the world to meet the new costly standards (see: China).

The current goal should be to not fuck up either of them while realizing that idealism will waste everyone's time. The environment is suffering from centuries of buildup that we can't just erase, so the goal there is to curb the damage we're causing with the understanding that maintaining the current average human lifestyle will cause some pollution. Meanwhile, a major economic meltdown puts us in a position where we don't have the resource luxury to actively care about the environment, so everything goes down the drain. We need to keep the economy up because that's the only way the technology will ever get to where it needs to be.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Who says environmental protection can't stimulate economy?
Make and sell solar panels/ solar cells actually would earn money for some people, provide jobs for some people , and so on.
Also, eco-tourism.

But even if it doesn't, I'll still choose environment.

Think about this, even if we have absolutely no money, the things we own wouldn't suddenly disappear, and someone's going to still own a farm or so, we can still get food somehow. (Maybe by providing service to the farmer, or exchange your items for food)

But if the environment is screwed, we can't really survive.

Hong Kong has actually started a program where recycled plastic is legal currency, which I think is an amazing idea.
I think that if in America (where I live) that we made recycled items legal currency that we could go far. I know some cities have that already, but it needs to be everywhere.

.

?????
Link please?
Would be so cool if it's true though.
If it's true, I guess it's a small group of people.

 

[capefeather]

This is a false dichotomy that ironically is exploited by certain people to argue against the obvious. I did vote "environment" but only to answer the deeper question behind the scenes, which BenTheDemon mentioned. Regardless of whether we're talking about "economy" or "environment", the long term is always more important than the short term imo. I mean, that's the principle that people try to follow in every other aspect of their daily lives, but when it comes to politics, suddenly people put up these excuses that they would never buy themselves under a different context. The other thing is that people don't properly think about the costs and benefits of various energy resources. Various cognitive biases have hurt us big time when considering nuclear and wind energy in particular. I'm not saying that nuclear is the best resource ever, but I just find it really ironic that people fall for the fear mongering of certain environmental groups, and then decide that continuing our "relationship" with big oil would be less damaging. Also, the wind turbine sickness thing is a runaway placebo effect propagated by the media.

The effects of climate change are very difficult to predict, and what we can predict doesn't look pretty. I've seen it argued that climate change has actually helped humans overall in the last century, but even so, there's a point where things are going to go way downhill, if they haven't already. It really goes to show just how short-sighted people are being to collectively take such a stupid gamble.

Its less to outperform gasoline products, its more like oil will be extinct in the next 100 years at our current rate of consumption so we need alternatives now to slow down its depletion and demand so we don't go bat shit crazy when the oil runs out. Eco-friendly products outperform gas products if there is no gas or its way too expensive, which is certainly going to happen soon.

I've seen people argue that we'll never run out of oil because advancements in technology will keep finding more oil. They cited the fact that many past oil depletion predictions have been false so far. I wish I were kidding.

 

[toshimelonhead]

I don't see this as a dichotomy but rather a severe imbalance that I don't see correcting any time soon.

It's not that I want a clean environment rather than a good economy. I like having stuff and financial security. The problem now is that the marginal benefit of improving the economy is no longer worth the marginal cost of polluting the environment. It's one thing to decide between polluting and starving; it's another to decide between polluting and getting an additional widget when I already have plenty of widgets.