Consider the ultimate impact that environmental law has on the economy. Do short-term drawbacks justify long-term goals? If there is a conflict, which should come first—the economy or the environment?
What will be an ideal response?
Anecdotal evidence may suggest that environmental laws are detrimental to the economy, but studies show the opposite. Economic performance is highest where environmental public policy is most highly developed. If workers are healthier, the physical plant energy is efficient, and resources are conserved, then the company will see a larger profit and be more competitive. Therefore, the wealth is transferred from polluting companies to those that are less polluting. The environment protection industry itself is good for the economy as it employs people for a variety of jobs.
Developing countries such as China have followed the U.S. precedent that the economy should come first, but are paying for it now with bad air, polluted water, and unhealthy conditions. Given the problems these countries are having, it seems clear that the environment should come first.
You might also like to view...
Pleistocene gold deposits were formed through Cenozoic plutonic activity. Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Which factor would help ensure survival of one species over another?
A. adaptable to environmental change B. having to compete for sparse resources C. being a food source for other animals
A part of a stream that receives water from the inflow of ground water is called a
A. losing stream. B. hydraulic gradient. C. gaining stream.
If a person buys timber that is certified, he or she can be sure that it is
A) grown without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. B) made from recycled wood chips. C) sustainably harvested. D) harvested and milled by hand.