This is the position the hard-line right takes. The problem is that if SOMETHING didn’t impede development of land, we would have paved over everything by now. Environmental initiatives don’t just protect wildlife; they protect sources of clean water and air that people need to survive.
But in terms of economic development, green initiatives could help enormously, if they were invested in properly. We’re going to need a massive overhaul of infrastructure to build clean energy sources, and that means the creation of LOTS of jobs. Given the state the global economy is in at the moment, that would be a godsend. Unfortunately, the people making money from dirty energy right now are lobbying hard to prevent it from happening.
I definitely agree with sarahtonin. If lobbyists and nonprofit organizations like The Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, and WWF didn’t advocate for green intiatives and environementally concious programs, I believe America would be one giant mini-mall. Several companies make a lot of money much to the detriment of the environment (just ask BP), and thankfully there are people who want to change that.
I would say that environmental initiatives impede bad or unstable development. Environmental regulations are put in place to make sure that our buildings and other developments are sustainable and do not impede on the natural process of things. These regulations are put in place because certain parts of this world need to be protected. Environmental regulations make sure developers know the full extent and impact of their development and make sure they are building in a way that will last.
Like Jacoba said, I think that environmental initiatives prohibit a certain type of development – that is, development that is unsustainable and causes more harm to the environment than benefits to humanity. While this might seem like a bummer at first glance, it’s ultimately for the best – getting these prohibitions in place now means that we have to start finding creative, environmentally sound ways of developing the nation. Without environmental legislation, we would probably just choose the easiest ways and hope for the best (so far, that hasn’t worked out too well for us). Ultimately, environmental legislation should actually help development, albeit development in a different form than we see now.
It’s a fine line to walk when you are speaking about initiatives impeding economic growth. On one side, it is very much a reality that environmental restrictions can be obstacles for some types of businesses, and many times costing these businesses more in the long run to operate. On the other hand, these regulations are put in place so that the local factory doesn’t poison our water or air supply, not to mention have any sign of nature around. This is some of the rhetoric being used by some conservative Republicans in the United States, stating that regulation is halting economic growth. The good news is that many businesses are finding ways to conduct their businesses and be green at the same time, and I believe this trend will only grow in the next few years; a notable exception to this would probably be mining and fossil fuel burning though.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC