# Economy vs. Environment



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

This seems to be one or the other, why can't we have economic stability without gutting our environmental standards?

This is the trade off world wide not just in Canada, very few countries realize without a clean habitable environment everybody suffers, eventually.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There is no amount of money that can cure what we are currently doing to the earth.

EDIT: Gaffed on the poll, forgot to include an option for both, Economic stability based on sustainable environmental practices.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Switzerland, great environment, and great economy. They just control their population in many different ways. It is possible to have both, people just need to look to them and learn how a country should be run. Unfortunately over here you have leftists and rightists all blaming each other for bullshit. Endlessly..........


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

People get distracted by money. That's just how it is. In a world where improving the world around us takes generations, while making a stinking fortune can take mere seconds on the stock exchange, you can understand just why and how distracting it can be. 

Part of the standoff between "the west" and developing nations, vis-a-vis environmental concerns is the quite understandable reply "YOU'RE the guys who f***ed up the environment and got rich on OUR backs. Why the hell do WE have to sidestep acquiring some modest level of affluence because you're rich enough now to think you can dictate environmental standards?"

The best/strongest argument for melding economic and environmental concerns is that it will ultimately cost MUCH more to not do anything than to forfeit a bit of wealth now. Now, if folks were up for long-term investments, that would be a much easier sell.


----------



## -ST- (Feb 2, 2008)

I said environment because my best friend has kids.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Without sound economic policy you won't have any money to protect the environment.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Dave, without a habitable environment we'll all die. Without clean drinking water, we'll all die. 

With a sound economic policy and no one around to benefit from it what's the point?


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I lecture on this very problem. It is a much deeper, bigger issue. I will spare you the lecure (literally) but as long as we calculate social good in terms of perpetual growth (GDP) the environment comes second. When people hear the word "unsustainable" they don't realize this term should be taken literally; our economic/social system simply cannot be sustained because the natural systems that provide for life cannot sustain how we live.

Growth, the nature and purpose of work, distribution of wealth, all need to be fundamentally reworked. The quest for profit can no longer be the lynch pin of the social world; profit seeking and development/growth only seem like the solution because of the economic/social system we have built in the last 250 years. Change the system, change the logic, change the solution.

It won't be easy, but people will look back at us and wonder, "what the hell were they doing?!"


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It's a battle of GNP vs GDP. GDP is about money made, regardless of who makes it, or where it ends up. GDP can still be exquisitely high as a region is being pillaged and raped. GNP examines how much benefit is created for the region where the money is made.

GDP is preferred by a "global economy" because investors don't really care all that much about the community where their investments lie.

Incidentally, I will just note in passing that all the various investment funds we all comfortably expect to pay for our retirements (including those investments made by governments for OAP purposes) are predicated on GDP and money over environment. Simply put, the ROI on environment is too little and too slow to pay for early retirement and ongoing comfort.

We may want to rethink that.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I understand what you mean on a basic level, but it has more to do with how you include foreign money within a given territory. The phrase "how much _benefit_ is created for the region" is a bit misleading. GNP still tries to directly link social good/health with economic production and growth. It is that precise linkage which needs to be questioned and analyzed more deeply. Perpetual growth, the hallmark of our current system, is unsustainable but our current economy (in its present state) cannot exist without it. 

A much more interesting economic calculation is GPI: “General Progess Indicator.” It actually subtracts . . .



mhammer said:


> It's a battle of GNP vs GDP. GDP is about money made, regardless of who makes it, or where it ends up. GDP can still be exquisitely high as a region is being pillaged and raped. GNP examines how much benefit is created for the region where the money is made.
> 
> GDP is preferred by a "global economy" because investors don't really care all that much about the community where their investments lie.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Humans survived without an economy for eons......it took us a long time to create one. In the mean time, we survived as hunter/gatherers, which was not the easiest way to live, but it wasn't extinction.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Some how we need to find a balance between both I am torn as to how much of the economy is hurting our planet and how much is natural. We see that things are changing but we can't say for 100% that is because of our pollution or if it has to do with the natural process of the earth also. We know that the earth changes from a natural process in climate and weather changes and even in the polar ice caps so is it nature or man that is speeding up that process. I know that pollution has a bearing on how it all comes into play but as to how much of it is, makes you wonder if we are not around the corner for another ice age or if we are in for a desert situation. Either way we might be hooped and it amy become something that is going to be out of our hands.ship
I do wonder if maybe there are just to many of us on this earth already and that our needs are out weighing the availablity of our planet


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Greed will destroy us all in the end.
Way too many of us are taking way more than what we need - just because we can and because there is no one to tell us "no".

First figure out how to eliminate greed, then you will be able address the question of economy vs. environment. (if the issue hasn't already self-solved by that time)

and btw, I agree with Ship that global warming is either just another scam or an accidental misinterpretation of the facts.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Jim DaddyO said:


> Humans survived without an economy for eons......it took us a long time to create one. In the mean time, we survived as hunter/gatherers, which was not the easiest way to live, but it wasn't extinction.


Many economists would disagree with you. There has always been commerce, and things have always had some sort of value associated with them, whether those "things" were food, tools, salt, people, labour, title, etc.. Where they would agree with you, however, is that the basis for, and structure of, the economy has changed considerably over the last century.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

My two cents worth. That's all it's worth. The radical environmentalists need to tone down their doom and gloom the world will end tomorrow BS and try and start a conversation with all parties. With the current split of left, right no one is talking honestly, everyone is going to the media in the hopes of getting another good sound bite. Yesterdays news cast telling all who were watching that Vancouver and Richmond where in danger of being under water in as soon as a decade is just fear mongering, it gets them on TV though. This constant the sky is falling the ocean is rising we're all going to drown crap turns people off. They just start to ignore any realistic and worthwhile solutions to a very large problem. So onward we march left/right or right/left or is it left/left, right/right or maybe two steps forward and three steps back then two steps sideways. 

Hey that's what we are doing right now


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

in my way of thinking it seems like people can only see 2 scenarios for the future. it's either mad max, or star trek. i am of the opinion that if there were less of us, it would be better. i do not think we are going to figure this out. i think we've been here before, and we screwed it up then too. there was a reset, and we had to start over. we'll do it this time too. we'll go too far, and we'll implode. when most of us are gone, we wont be able to support much of the invisible technology we take for granted. it will disappear, and we'll regress to some point and then slowly come back, and end up right where we are now, eons in the future.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Oh yeah! The over population issue. The one no one really wants to bring up, at least the "how do we get less people" part of the issue. I agree that there are too many of us on the planet. No clue on a solution to the problem. 
Most population growth occurs in less developed countries. Countries with well educated and employed women have a lower population growth. Education is a good start I think.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

but the population control part isn't really my point. i think what i mean to say is, that as a species, i think we have a "sweet spot"


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Gotta be a balance between the 2, and tempered with some good old common sense and ingenuity.
I resent the notion these days that doing better for the planet has to mean throwing money at it....that's just consumerism /wealth redistribution under a guise.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Without a sound environment, the economy is irrelevant.


Yes we need both to live the way we're used to, but we can't live if we trash the planet.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Without a sound environment, the economy is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Yes we need both to live the way we're used to, but we can't live if we trash the planet.


The converse is true too...when facing poverty/starvation, inhabitants will destroy the environment to survive.

You can't have one without the other. A decent standard of living combined with respect for the environment.
You gonna ask someone living in squalor to buy carbon credits?


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


> but the population control part isn't really my point. i think what i mean to say is, that as a species, i think we have a "sweet spot"




I agree, there is a sweet spot as with all species. It fluctuates naturally, i.e. one year may be great for rabbits, then the fox population increases, as the abundant bunnies are caught, the predator population declines.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

mhammer said:


> It's a battle of GNP vs GDP. GDP is about money made, regardless of who makes it, or where it ends up. GDP can still be exquisitely high as a region is being pillaged and raped. GNP examines how much benefit is created for the region where the money is made.
> 
> GDP is preferred by a "global economy" because investors don't really care all that much about the community where their investments lie.
> 
> ...


I was watching somehting on CBC last night about Nigeria's oil Industry that made this exact point. The guy being interviewed says "In the west if you have oil on your land, you're a rich man. I had a thriving farmland and could make a living, now I have a oil well and I'm poor." 

It goes on to show oil slicks running in the rivers from ill maintained pipe lines, decimated villages turned into oil patches. One of the comapnies named was Shell and one guy actually went to Hague, Netherlands to fight Shell in court and won. It actually costs them less to pay off Nigerian's (Pirates included) than to solve/fix the problems. Including pipeline maintenance and especially clean up. 

As long as there is money flowing in and oil flowing out of Nigeria or elsewhere (Canada) the environment loses.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

It was Vice not CBC. Here's the vid. Oil stuff starts at 14:30, an eye opener into the oil industry.

http://www.tubeplus.me/player/2119571/ (pop up warning, there is a button to ignore and continue as free user) 

Vice also has a episode about Canada's Cancer valley, Sarnia Ont.

Just watched a movie tonight about water rights being sold to private companies. *A Dark Truth*, great movie not a documentary.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

It's greed and corruption. 

I wondered about this question 40 years ago. It just makes sense to look after the environment. After all, the earth is our home. But those who are determined to be rich and powerful are only interested in short term gain (or what they call gain).


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

I care about the enviroment and do what I can to help out but my comments are sure to piss off 90% of the people here, if not all.

I think Davetcan nailed it, "Without sound economic policy you won't have any money to protect the environment."

Technology comes at a price. If you are serious about saving the planet, stop using the internet, get rid of your computer, sell your car, disconect your house from electricity and gas, quit your job and stop shitting in my sewer. If you like to travel, do vacations out of the country at a nice 4 star resort, drink cheap booze and enjoy the sun, do some jet sking, parasailing, maybe some deep sea fishing, please stop. 

Build a fire and farm your own food and then you can tell me I'm an asshole.

Oh yeah, and get rid of your pet! 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...ion-pets-hurts-mother-nature/article13584868/


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

The economy of the modern world behaves like a cancer, it consumes without replacing, infects without healing, and leaves corpses in its wake. The economy of nature is stabilized by natural forces which include population control inasmuch as we're just another mammal. The linchpin here is that this human mammal has created things and forces that nature can't respond to fast enough or at all. Nuclear, chemical, petro-chemical, habitat destruction, etc have immediate effects that nature hasn't time to deal with, especially in the face of more human interruptions.

The things that may be our undoing could be what we didn't expect. Rather than nuclear, it might be the loss of bees (google it, I can't believe it not front page news everywhere). Rather than rising oceans, it could be the loss and destruction of fresh water and water table pollution. Rather than some rogue nation/force/crash/war/whatever it could be the rise of a quick moving disease.

Contrary to what the naysayers will spew about Earth being able to cope, after all it coped with previous events (shifting continents, dinosaurs, etc), Earth will not cope with us as a species if the destruction moves as fast as it is now. Our days are numbered, maybe not this generation or the next, but within the next few generations they'll be cursing ours as maybe the last one that could have reversed the destruction.

I don't have the solutions, except that I believe in population control, petro-chemical rationing, habitat restoration, massive tree planting, etc.

Fwiw, I still get the "he's a wack job" look from folks when I talk about this stuff. Fuck them. Change your behavior or you'll be forced to eventually.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

It is like Easter Island...on a larger scale. Once nature figures out a way to cull the population (if we don't do it ourselves, either by choice or chance) things will start to turn around.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

"The general population doesn't know what's happening and doesn't even know it doesn't know." or words to that affect from Norm Chomsky I read on Facebook today. And they'll have it figured out when they sufficate on the air they can't breathe, or when the water is rising over their new Nikes.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Fader (Mar 10, 2009)

The Emperor's new clothes are green.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

When I made my comment, which still stands by the way, I read the poll as where should we invest our money, Economy or Environment. My interpretation of "we" is the various levels of government. I have a fairly major problem with the fiscal policies of all of our elected officials. The old statement "you can't get blood from a stone" will soon apply. There is only so much more taxation the average taxpayer can tolerate and we're already running fairly massive defecits. So I'll say it again - without sound economic policy there will be no money to put back into the environment. Where would you rather put tax revenue? Health Care? Education? Social Services? Environment? The Ecomony/Jobs? Infrastructure? Armed Forces? Blah, blah, blah, blah, the list goes on. It's NOT just about the economy vs the environment. That is massively over simplifying the issue.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

First thing you would have to do is get rid of all of the greedy people. Until then it doesn't really matter what solution you come up with, it won't work. 

Since we can't get rid of all of the greedy people, we have no other choice but to do our part (if we so chose) and watch the mess unfold. 



Moosehead said:


> This seems to be one or the other, why can't we have economic stability without gutting our environmental standards?
> 
> This is the trade off world wide not just in Canada, very few countries realize without a clean habitable environment everybody suffers, eventually.
> 
> ...


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

When the laws are made so that big corporations like Apple can avoid paying taxes, it does illustrate that we need strong economic policy...but it also illustrates that we don't have it. The few get extremely wealthy and the entities which take care of the environment are almost like charities.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

If we just left the earth alone it is designed to heal itself. The problem is that we keep trying to get as much out of it as possible with mostly an "who cares attitude".

As to spending on the economy, how about $1.7 trillion per year? That's what is spent globally on military's around the world. So, if people aren't dying quick enough and in great enough numbers from the attack on our environment, governments use bullets, bombs and chemicals to speed things up. And all of this is being done with our expense, both monetarily and healthwise.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Agreed! ......



Steadfastly said:


> If we just left the earth alone it is designed to heal itself. The problem is that we keep trying to get as much out of it as possible with mostly an "who cares attitude".
> 
> As to spending on the economy, how about $1.7 trillion per year? That's what is spent globally on military's around the world. So, if people aren't dying quick enough and in great enough numbers from the attack on our environment, governments use bullets, bombs and chemicals to speed things up. And all of this is being done with our expense, both monetarily and healthwise.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

With respect to the environment, I think it will take care of itself. If mankind continues on this path, at some point in the future the environment will get tired of all of us parasites and will come up with a cure - major floods, earth quakes, volcanic eruption...whatever. The environment will get rid of the problem and everything will eventually get back to "normal". I'm not suggesting that the "environment" will consciously do that, just that things tend to work themselves out. So in the end we will all get what we deserve. sigiifa


----------

