environment or economy ?

... do we have to choose ?

Published on December 15, 2004 By mignuna In Politics

I recently read an article that published excerpts from Robert F. Kennedy Jnr’s speech at the “Living a Fearless Life” conference held by the ‘Omega Institute’ in New York in April 2004. Entitled “Tearing Pages from The Bible”, the article focuses on Kennedy’s assertion that unregulated negative environmental impact eventually translates into economic catastrophe.

Kennedy demonstrates the ramifications of having little or no environmental policy by citing the Russian environmental disasters of the Aral Sea, once the world’s fourth largest freshwater body of water and now a desert, and the Sea of Azov, once the worlds’ richest aquatic-life sea and now a biological wasteland.

Focusing on the changes to environmental law proposed by the Bush administration, Kennedy is quoted as saying that “If even a fraction of the over two hundred ‘rollbacks’ currently proposed by the Bush administration are passed or enacted, by thus time next year we (America) will have effectively no significant environmental law left in our country”.

“That’s not exaggeration. That’s not hyperbole. That’s a fact. They didn’t have a national environmental policy in Russia, and we’re about to not have it here, too, because the Bush administration is destroying it. many of our laws will remain on the books, in one form or another, but they’ll be unenforceable”.

The article-supplied link to the details of these ‘rollbacks’ reveals a website packed with horror stories and headlines such as “White House Stifles Global Warming Data, says NASA Top Official” , “Scientists say Bush Administration's Environmental Policies Ignore Science”, and “Bush Administration Opposes Renewable Energy Requirement”.

Some of these articles are recent, some are not, but all share a similar problem: they offer a ‘scientific’ argument or solution that either cannot realistically be funded or negatively impacts the economy in another way – by slowing or even ceasing ‘ecologically poor’ business practices.

Balancing environment and industry is an age old battle, and it can only worsen as we grow in numbers and needs. Striking fear into the hearts of the populace and blaming their leader works for some, blaming the ‘invisible’ big businesses for their ‘profit above purity’ mentality works for others.

The eventual ceasing of industrial practices that harm the environment should be the ultimate goal of the worlds’ people, yet we are divided. The modern choice is either embrace ‘the new industrialism’ and enjoy the fruits of increased production and lowered costs, or else impair the very industries that make our world viable and stop enjoying cheaper goods and better variety.

Who of us has even made a choice which side of the argument we lie on ?. I want a clean world and a comfortable life. I make a minimal impact on the environment, yet when world leaders seemingly adopt a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ attitude, what incentive is there for the ‘little person’ to hope that sorting their meager trash into ‘recyclables’ will help at all ?.

Any opinions or discussion on the above would be welcomed. As you can see, the ‘perfect’ answer seems to elude me, but questions I have many.

Note: *The articles “White House Stifles Global Warming Data, says NASA Top Official” , “Scientists say Bush Administration's Environmental Policies Ignore Science”, and “Bush Administration Opposes Renewable Energy Requirement”, plus details of the ‘rollbacks,’ are available here: Link

*The quoted article “Tearing Pages from the Bible” was originally published in EIA magazine: Link

Comments

Floozie

on Dec 15, 2004

I'm going to have to go off and have a think about this one, migs. It is an issue that I feel strongly about, yet seem to not have very well formed opinions when it comes down to getting things on paper. I'll get back to you later.

Thank you for posting this, however. I love it when someone can make me realise that I'm not sure what I think about something, thereby forcing me to give it a little more thought and hopefully draw some conclusion.

Suz xxx

Solitair

on Dec 15, 2004

The modern choice is either embrace ‘the new industrialism’ and enjoy the fruits of increased production and lowered costs, or else impair the very industries that make our world viable and stop enjoying cheaper goods and better variety.

Who of us has even made a choice which side of the argument we lie on ?

Well the rest of the world has gone with the environment. Industries are now required to reduce pollution even at the cost of higher product costs.

The US has gone with industry. More pollution is allowed so long as the fraction of increased production is lower than the fraction of increased pollution. So if you double production but increase pollution by 50% then that is allowed.

It will be interesting to see in a few years time how this plays out.

Paul.

whoman69

on Dec 15, 2004

The Bush administration feels that environmental laws should be voluntary upon government. Do you know any businessmen that are going to make that profits vs the environmental decision that costs his company money?

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 15, 2004

"many of our laws will remain on the books, in one form or another, but they’ll be unenforceable”.

Not to mention steadily cutting the EPA's budget to make sure they aren't enforced.

"I want a clean world and a comfortable life."

Then perhaps we need to redifne what "comfortable" means...some would call our minimal lifestyles excessive. I think we can have both but it means investing in alternative fuels other than fossil fuels for starters. But that would mean a real shift in wealth from those in the oil industry to those in alternative fuel industries and therein lies the rub.

"I make a minimal impact on the environment"

I think we all adversely impact the environment in more ways than we are aware of. I include myself in that category.

Henry

on Dec 16, 2004

Only the minority cares about the enviroment the majority really just doesnt give a rats bum. Humans are incredibly selfish by nature so I do hold any hope for us changing unless the pros have a visible and tangible immediate benifit. Be realistic we are screwed big time.

iamheather

on Dec 16, 2004

Reply #4 By: whoman69 - 12/15/2004 9:01:16 AM
The Bush administration feels that environmental laws should be voluntary upon government. Do you know any businessmen that are going to make that profits vs the environmental decision that costs his company money?

Interesting, whoman. You might want to consult the report released today by the EPA. Fascinating data, actually.

mignuna

on Dec 17, 2004

thankyou for the comments.

heather, i did follow that link, and thanks for providing it, it answered some questions for me.

suz, like me, you sound divided. let me know what you come up with.

paul, you have touched on one of my biggest worries, and i agree that the consequences may be unexpected.

t-bone, it's true that we all impact the environment in a negative way, although i do try and minimise any personal damage - which requires a fairly solid commitment to recycling, natural products and power, growing food where possible and minimising consumption and waste. it just all seems fairly pointless when catastrophe is imminent anyway.

henry, as usual you don't mince words, but i agree anyway. i think we ARE screwed. big time.

mig XXX

Grog577

on Dec 18, 2004

HEY i have an idea! Lets not hurt anything and hug trees! We can clean up most pollution. Global warming is bullshit the earth has been warming ever since the iceage.

whoman69

on Dec 18, 2004

We can clean up most pollution.

Not really. Have you seen how much oil is left after a spill? What about air pollution. You have a magic filter you can pass that through?

Global warming is bullshit the earth has been warming ever since the iceage.

Not really, the temperature goes up and down in relation to the sun's activities. But the sun's activities cannot explain the temperatures that we have been seeing in the arctic and antarctic regions. You say, wow its cold out. Where's global warming? Simplistic way of doing it. The temperatures rise in the polar regions and start melting the ice caps. That water reaches is colder than the ocean water, mixes with it and makes that colder bringing with it a colder than normal winter. It just recycles but everytime, the temperatures keep rising at the poles. Its not like turning an oven on and poof, everything's a dessert. That's why its so easy to disbelieve. It goes in cycles and doesn't happen right away. But is there any doubt for those that add more CO2 to their greenhouses that the temperatures will rise? Is there any doubt that Venus with its high levels of CO2 is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun? Do you really want to take a chance with the future survival of mankind that the theory is wrong?

mignuna

on Dec 18, 2004

What about air pollution

i agree, whoman. i also worry about the thinking that 'polluted bodies of water may eventually be able to be restored to health'. even if this is so, there will be no 'restoring to good health' of their dead ecosystems.

mig XXX

drmiler

on Dec 19, 2004

Reply #10 By: whoman69 - 12/18/2004 7:06:36 PM
We can clean up most pollution.

Not really. Have you seen how much oil is left after a spill? What about air pollution. You have a magic filter you can pass that through?

Global warming is bullshit the earth has been warming ever since the iceage.

Not really, the temperature goes up and down in relation to the sun's activities. But the sun's activities cannot explain the temperatures that we have been seeing in the arctic and antarctic regions. You say, wow its cold out. Where's global warming? Simplistic way of doing it. The temperatures rise in the polar regions and start melting the ice caps. That water reaches is colder than the ocean water, mixes with it and makes that colder bringing with it a colder than normal winter. It just recycles but everytime, the temperatures keep rising at the poles. Its not like turning an oven on and poof, everything's a dessert. That's why its so easy to disbelieve. It goes in cycles and doesn't happen right away. But is there any doubt for those that add more CO2 to their greenhouses that the temperatures will rise? Is there any doubt that Venus with its high levels of CO2 is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun? Do you really want to take a chance with the future survival of mankind that the theory is wrong?

Check this whoman

Chemically active gases: The concentrations of CO, nitrogen oxides, and non-methane hydrocarbons are higher than pre-industrial values over large regions. These gases can, through a series of chemical interactions, induce changes in the lifetimes and concentrations of radiatively active gases, including ozone and methane.

Because of their infrared absorption, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases exert a global warming influence.
The magnitude and timing of the resulting warming is less certain. Observations and measurements of past and present radiative effects and concentrations of greenhouse gases indicate that the changes in the radiation balance from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will, in the absence of other factors changing the climate, induce global warming. The extent of the warming will be affected by the strength of water vapor and cloud feedback processes, which are major factors in controlling the natural greenhouse effect and which would likely respond to the radiative changes described. These feedbacks change the magnitude of the warming, but not the presence of the warming.

The drawdown of the augmented CO2 concentration to near its preindustrial level would take centuries, even if emissions were substantially reduced in the near future. Further, because a substantial reduction in global CO2 emissions below current levels is unlikely in the next few decades, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to continue to increase.
The drawdown of CFCs and nitrous oxide to their preindustrial levels would take more than a century, even with a halt in human emissions. Because of chemical decomposition in the atmosphere, the drawdown of the excess methane concentration to near its preindustrial level would take only several decades if emissions were to be significantly reduced.

Link

And this one too.

Link

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!