NationStates Jolt Archive

Can we improve the economy without destroying the environment? I don't mean this for ten years, I mean hundreds and hundreds of years.

Although technologies are developing very quickly and pollution per unit is decreasing sharply, consumption is growing even faster. If all Chinese and Indians enjoyed the same standard of living as of North America, West Europe or Japan, how much time would the Earth last?

Besides, pollution laws are much less overperfectionist in undeveloping countries. Just think of all the new cars being sold there every year. Almost none of them comply any relatively modern emissions standards. And some govermnments/companies/citizens claim: "we should first grow enough, and only then care about pollution".

But solar window panels, biofuel, passive heating systems, recycling, ecosystem recoveries... things are getting better every day.

Do you have any hope in sustainable development? Is there any?

Considering that the environment is healthier now than it was a hundred years ago, yes.

I belive it is. Look at some cases like that of the Philippines or Brazil. Locals have started planting trees when others are cut down. They are using traditional methods to solve a modern problem

I absolutely believe it is possible, but for many people, there is little incentive (especially in the West) to do it. So where you are seeing more sustainable development is in areas that simply do not have access to mainstream services. Solar electricty in bush camps, roof top water cisterns in deserts, and so on. Areas that can not be connected to the grid, are 'hooking up' in other ways. That's not to say it will always be that way...if it became feasible to hook them up to main power and water lines...doubtless it would be welcomed, and that's a shame.

In any case, even if oil doesn't dry up in our lifetime, the cost of using it is rising to the point where even pampered westerners are taking notice. If it hits you in the pocket book, then you start to care. I see more and more people going 'off grid'...using geothermal heating (as we do...though we have to move now and I'm not sure we can afford to install a similar system again right away :(), solar heating or power, wind power etc. I see this as positive, and with the technology becoming more accessible and cheaper, I believe it is going to catch on with a larger segment of the Western population.

Y bienvenido/a, no hay muchos latinos aqui, y siempre necesitamos mas...

That is questianable, if we do follow the right path, I think we have to put huge taxes on gasoline in america, so people are forced to walk, and we use the tax money to create a viable mass transportation system and to provide incentives for people getting wind turbines and solar panels, so that in 2 years they would pay for themselves, and we should just try to promote a culture of oraganics and vegatarianism to reduce cow flatulence, we should also promote a less american culture (As in the love of the automobile and over consumerism) and we should pour billions of dollars into renewable energies such as geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro power.

Can we improve the economy without destroying the environment?

We can't destroy the environment. We're part of the environment - all we can do is change it.

And anything we do will change it in some way.

For example, let's say we completely abandon fossil fuels and produce all of our energy from giant solar panels in space, which beam their energy down to us using lasers (this is perfectly feasible technology). This will change the environment quite a lot, both by reducing our emissions by quite a bit, and by dramatically increasing the amount of solar radiation the earth receives.

Although technologies are developing very quickly and pollution per unit is decreasing sharply, consumption is growing even faster. If all Chinese and Indians enjoyed the same standard of living as of North America, West Europe or Japan, how much time would the Earth last?


The Earth will be just fine its just the humans and other life that will be affected.

This pole is biased, where is the: "yes and it will not be very tough" option

Once America and the rest of the world stop bring such bitches to big buisness, then yes. *grumble*didn't sign kyoto accord*grumble*

Not everything human beings do to the environment is detrimental, even bustling cities have large animal populations, (rats, pigeons, foxes, etc.), so it's rarely a simple case of destruction.

Back on topic though, I think there will eventually come a time where our level of technology brings us to a singularity wherein our environmental footprints are nigh totally negated. This will probably come about due to the invention of Cold Fusion, and the relocation of poluting industries into space, or some other such technological breakthrough.

We just need to avoid inflicting upon ourselves some kind of mass extinction event before then... shouldn't be too hard...

This pole is biased, where is the: "yes and it will not be very tough" option

Is it easy? I don't think so, and I really think noone would think like that. It's hard to convince
*oil companies
*garimpeiros (Amazonian agricultors - the soil there isn't fertile at all)
*full-size SUVs' owners
*burocrats
*etc.

that they can
*produce energy with solar panels in the desert, without losing profits
*grow trees, cut them down and plant new ones later
*buy lighter, more fuel efficent vehicles, use renewable fuels or travel by train or bus
*promote the use of low consumption electric devices, warm-isolated houses, solar panels or water heaters
*etc.

Many people just don't care about the environment, and the overwhelming majority (e.g. myself) cares but doesn't do anything about it. It will take a lot of effeort... and it's the only chance.

It won't be possible under our current economic order.

The government will have to step in and nationalize all industry, or at least heavily regulate it or heavily tax it, in order to achieve this.

It will be hard with the republicans in charge. But, there is hope, as a famous prophet once said, "political will is a renewable resource."

I think it is (with sacrifice) possible. Technologically, we have some incredible capacities either within or just beyond our reach.

Practically, I don't believe we will ever change. Environmental devastation seems inevitable without some kind of deus-ex-machina inventions in the close future combined with a major shift in culture.

I like how people with computers have been choosing the second poll option. I wonder if they can see the irony, there.

I say start looking for another planet NOW, before it's too late.

Is it easy? I don't think so, and I really think noone would think like that...

That's the essence of bias. You think of a poll option as in no way possible, so you elected not to put it.

(Don't mean to come off as bragging or anything, just an example) For example, when I made my "Was the referee biased in the game of Spain vs. Tunisia" poll, even though I could only conceivably see people thinking that at worst they'd think there was no bias, I still put the option "The referee was biased against Tunisia" (I was campaigning for referee being biased towards Spain).

Yes and no. As an economy matures, its growth becomes increasingly sustainable.

It depends primarily on how developed the economy is; the more emphasis on technology and services, the less pollution produced and resources consumed because they require less to produce more of value. Also, that emphasis increases productivity and efficiency which further reduce the resources needed for growth. Compare that to developing economies, who are less mature and centered on heavy manufacturing and other resource-intensive industries and also lack the productivity or efficiency of more mature industrial bases. The market system itself also helps by providing a necessary method of rationing scarce resources; the more subsidized and controlled the market is, the more common waste and unsustainability become.

However, the reality is that humankind will eventually have to expand beyond Earth in order to secure the resources necessary to support the acceleration of technological and productive innovation; growth is necessary for those to occur, so we have to consume more resources in order to reduce our consumption in the longer term. It seems paradoxical, but growth is the means to sustainability rather than a force in opposition to it. Stopping growth also stops our ability to make our society a sustainable one.

The government will have to step in and nationalize all industry, or at least heavily regulate it or heavily tax it, in order to achieve this.

Nationalized industry has been responsible for some of the most terrible environmental devastation in the history of humankind. Government ownership is a natural source of waste, corruption, inefficiency, and pollution...if we want to annihilate the environment as fast as possible nationalization is a perfect means to that end.

Nationalized industry has been responsible for some of the most terrible environmental devastation in the history of humankind.

Can you justify that, using only examples from countries that have democratically nationalized portions of the economy?

That is questianable, if we do follow the right path, I think we have to put huge taxes on gasoline in america, so people are forced to walk, and we use the tax money to create a viable mass transportation system and to provide incentives for people getting wind turbines and solar panels, so that in 2 years they would pay for themselves, and we should just try to promote a culture of oraganics and vegatarianism to reduce cow flatulence, we should also promote a less american culture (As in the love of the automobile and over consumerism) and we should pour billions of dollars into renewable energies such as geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro power.

Meh. Gas taxes here already can be anything from 1/2 to 2/3 of the actual price (although that's an old figure, should be adjusted to, maybe, 1/4-1/2 with the rising gas price). Given the general affluence of the people that drive, they'd just keep driving and complaining (cf. tobacco taxes)... the only way would be to ration/outlaw gas consumption. Americans, like most others, are people of habit.

As far as alternative energy sources, it has to be viable before it will be adopted... so far the only solidly successful (commerical as well as environmental) "alternative" energy, to my knowledge, is hydro power, and that, of course, needs water. Solar energy is limited (not necessarily a bad thing); ditto wind power, because, well, sometimes it's not windy.

But the question is: where does the money come from, anyway? And if we leave it up to the government, economically the projects will collapse in the event of a severe recession, major political power-shift, or revolution (not impossible, even in developed countries).

Now, I'm not disagreeing with your saying we need cleaner/"renewable" energy. I just think the impetus has to come from private sources... government "reforms" don't work so well, whereas they can enforce or help along a status quo quite effectively. If we saw a situation where groups would get together to create solutions to the problem, then the government could effectively enforce a measure saying "Everybody else who hasn't done it yet do it too." If the government just says, "Do it!" then they're going to be kicked out by people who don't like it. Or at least, that's the situation, by and large, in the US.

Can you justify that, using only examples from countries that have *democratically* nationalized portions of the economy?

He can't if you stick in an extra variable like that.

I suspect you added that because you are away that vast areas of the former USSR are now infertile and wrecked, so you added that variable to help with the proof of your point.

The fact is, that democracy was not mentioned in the quoted poster's post at all, they recommended a radical campaign of forced nationalisation. Not a democratic process of communal ownership.

The fact is, that democracy was not mentioned in the quoted poster's post at all, they recommended a radical campaign of forced nationalisation. Not a democratic process of communal ownership.

No. He advocated nationalization. You don't know what kind of nationalization he advocated, and neither do I, because he didn't say.

we should just try to promote a culture of oraganics and vegatarianism to reduce cow flatulence

Um, I hope you realize that if we become vegetarians and stop killing cows for meat, there will be MORE cows, and their farts will kill us all!

Can you justify that, using only examples from countries that have democratically nationalized portions of the economy?

No. The only state-owned enterprises capable of development on the scale of a large, diversified economy have been forcibly nationalized.

Um, I hope you realize that if we become vegetarians and stop killing cows for meat, there will be MORE cows, and their farts will kill us all!

If we stopped killing cows for their meat, there would be far fewer cows than we have today. The reason for this is because we breed cows. There are not many wild cows.

Without the economic incentive (ie selling them for the meat) farmers would not breed so many cows and the population will fall quite rapidly.