<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Screwing up environment not so great for economy, studies find]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Tyler Durden http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-screwing-environment-economy/ Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:10:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-screwing-environment-economy/1 All economics are based on natural resources.  Once those resources are gone or very hard to reach due to overconsumption, the economy is doomed.  In addition to differentiating between short- and long-term economic gains, there's also the issue of who is making money from destructive practices.  Certainly the shareholders, executives, and management of Massey Coal are making lots of money from blowing up the Earth to extract coal, and so are the workers to some extent.  But for those who don't profit from this financially, not only do their mountains get blown up and the waste dumped into their streams, but they get no money from it.

But there's a much more important and deeper issue here:  Is it OK to destroy the natural environment in order to make money?  Or for convenience?  Or even to support some members of an already grossly overpopulated species?  My answer is "no" to all of these.  But until enough humans realize that we're all connected (by "we" I mean all life, including land, air, and water), that it's not OK to kill or destroy anything except to eat it, and that it's not OK to overpopulate, destroying the Earth for short term economic gains will continue.

]]> All economics are based on natural resources.  Once those resources are gone or very hard to reach due to overconsumption, the economy is doomed.  In addition to differentiating between short- and long-term economic gains, there's also the issue of who is making money from destructive practices.  Certainly the shareholders, executives, and management of Massey Coal are making lots of money from blowing up the Earth to extract coal, and so are the workers to some extent.  But for those who don't profit from this financially, not only do their mountains get blown up and the waste dumped into their streams, but they get no money from it.

But there's a much more important and deeper issue here:  Is it OK to destroy the natural environment in order to make money?  Or for convenience?  Or even to support some members of an already grossly overpopulated species?  My answer is "no" to all of these.  But until enough humans realize that we're all connected (by "we" I mean all life, including land, air, and water), that it's not OK to kill or destroy anything except to eat it, and that it's not OK to overpopulate, destroying the Earth for short term economic gains will continue.

]]> Comment #2 by walt k http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-screwing-environment-economy/ Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:36:52 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-screwing-environment-economy/2 Good article and links, but why is this a revelation? Who knew? These folks did: Barbara Kingsolver- "Recall that whatever lofty things you might accomplish today, you will do them only because you first ate something that grew out of dirt."--Forward, The Essential Agrarian Reader; Sen. Gaylord Nelson- "The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment." c. 1970; Wendell Berry- "The environment is the economy." and "Nature bats last."; William O. Douglas- "I am for the individual over government, government over big business and the environment over all"; Lyndon B. Johnson- "Three things, and three things only, sustain life on this planet. They are: a thin layer of soil, a cover of atmosphere, and a little rainfall. That is all the Lord has given us. Except one thing: He has given us a choice of what we do with it. We can waste it. We can pollute it. We can neglect it. Or we can conserve it, and we can protect it, and we can develop it, and we can pass it on to our children more promising, more abundant than we received it."-- 25 September 1964; Sir Albert Howard- "The real Arsenal of Democracy is a fertile soil, the fresh produce of which is the birthright of nations." -- The Soil and Health; Short answer, everyone with a brain who was willing to use it knew. And this fella not only knew, but could tell us about the folks who didn't ---Will Rogers- "You know, we're always talking about pioneers and what great folks the old pioneers were. Well, I think if we just stopped and looked at history in the face, the pioneer wasn't a thing in the world but a guy that wanted something for nothing. He was a guy that wanted to live off of everything that nature had done. He wanted to cut a tree down that didn't cost him anything, but he never did plant one. He wanted to plow up the land that should have been left to grass. We're just now learning that we can rob from nature the same way as we can rob from an individual. All he had was an ax, and a plow, and a gun, and he just went out and lived off nature. But really, he thought it was nature he was living off of, but it was really future generations that he was living off of." 1932

]]> Good article and links, but why is this a revelation? Who knew? These folks did: Barbara Kingsolver- "Recall that whatever lofty things you might accomplish today, you will do them only because you first ate something that grew out of dirt."--Forward, The Essential Agrarian Reader; Sen. Gaylord Nelson- "The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment." c. 1970; Wendell Berry- "The environment is the economy." and "Nature bats last."; William O. Douglas- "I am for the individual over government, government over big business and the environment over all"; Lyndon B. Johnson- "Three things, and three things only, sustain life on this planet. They are: a thin layer of soil, a cover of atmosphere, and a little rainfall. That is all the Lord has given us. Except one thing: He has given us a choice of what we do with it. We can waste it. We can pollute it. We can neglect it. Or we can conserve it, and we can protect it, and we can develop it, and we can pass it on to our children more promising, more abundant than we received it."-- 25 September 1964; Sir Albert Howard- "The real Arsenal of Democracy is a fertile soil, the fresh produce of which is the birthright of nations." -- The Soil and Health; Short answer, everyone with a brain who was willing to use it knew. And this fella not only knew, but could tell us about the folks who didn't ---Will Rogers- "You know, we're always talking about pioneers and what great folks the old pioneers were. Well, I think if we just stopped and looked at history in the face, the pioneer wasn't a thing in the world but a guy that wanted something for nothing. He was a guy that wanted to live off of everything that nature had done. He wanted to cut a tree down that didn't cost him anything, but he never did plant one. He wanted to plow up the land that should have been left to grass. We're just now learning that we can rob from nature the same way as we can rob from an individual. All he had was an ax, and a plow, and a gun, and he just went out and lived off nature. But really, he thought it was nature he was living off of, but it was really future generations that he was living off of." 1932

]]> Comment #3 by sindark http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-screwing-environment-economy/ Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:43:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-screwing-environment-economy/3 When dealing with climate change, politicians often talk about the need to ‘balance the economy and the environment.’ I think this is a misleading categorization for two reasons.

Firstly, the balance has always been tilted virtually 100% towards the economy, in Canada at least. When the government talks about the need to scale back climate mitigation programs for economic reasons, they are talking about scaling back a handful of ineffectual programs that are not proving effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The ‘balance’ dial between environment and economy is already twisted sharply towards the latter.

Secondly, even if we completely ignore the natural environment, the need to mitigate emissions remains. The Canadian economy could not survive the consequences of unrestrained emissions and climate change, with a temperature increase of 5.5°C to 7.1°C by 2100. If we care at all about the state of the economy 20, 50, and 80 years out, we need to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The economic analyses of mitigation that have been undertaken in the UK, Australia, and elsewhere have painted the same broad picture: it is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly at a modest cost, provided you start early. The costs associated with inaction are much higher than those associated with this mitigation programme. To succeed, the whole economy needs to be pushed in the direction of decarbonization – a fact that remains true regardless of what balance you care to strike between economic health across the long term and environmental protection.

]]> When dealing with climate change, politicians often talk about the need to ‘balance the economy and the environment.’ I think this is a misleading categorization for two reasons.

Firstly, the balance has always been tilted virtually 100% towards the economy, in Canada at least. When the government talks about the need to scale back climate mitigation programs for economic reasons, they are talking about scaling back a handful of ineffectual programs that are not proving effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The ‘balance’ dial between environment and economy is already twisted sharply towards the latter.

Secondly, even if we completely ignore the natural environment, the need to mitigate emissions remains. The Canadian economy could not survive the consequences of unrestrained emissions and climate change, with a temperature increase of 5.5°C to 7.1°C by 2100. If we care at all about the state of the economy 20, 50, and 80 years out, we need to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The economic analyses of mitigation that have been undertaken in the UK, Australia, and elsewhere have painted the same broad picture: it is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly at a modest cost, provided you start early. The costs associated with inaction are much higher than those associated with this mitigation programme. To succeed, the whole economy needs to be pushed in the direction of decarbonization – a fact that remains true regardless of what balance you care to strike between economic health across the long term and environmental protection.

]]> Comment #4 by Username http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-screwing-environment-economy/ Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:24:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-30-screwing-environment-economy/4 Great article and I agree with the last comment here.

]]> Great article and I agree with the last comment here.

]]>