Category: Environment

The connection between ecological conservation and the economy has been a subject of severe disputation for decades. Market analysts and policymaking committees of every vantage point seem to concur that a strong linkage prevails between environmental protection and the fiscal state; the controversy arises over the sign of the correlation coefficient. Conservationists contend that environmental protection facilitates economic growth and generate employment whereas detractors argue that environmental protection tends to be adverse towards economic development. In the latter case, environmental regulation stands accused of precipitating an extensive array of disadvantageous monetary consequences and resulting in a loss of global competitiveness. The conviction that ecological conservation gravely impairs the economy has become the centrepiece in the series of attempts of late to annul environmental legislation which aims to amend environmental quality. Concurrently, there is some significance in these animadversions of environmental policies. This essay intends to examine a diversity of claims concerning the economic costs as well as financial profits of ecological conservation. I champion for ecological conservation although it comes with several short-term sacrifices of economic returns. In the long run, the merits of ecological conservation should outweigh the fiscal loss.

Each claims that environmental regulatory expenditure does significant economic detriment rest upon the hypothesis that the costs are substantial. After all, relatively minuscule environmental funding would not give rise to association with negative implications. However, there are numerous possible interpretations of the term “large regulatory budget”, determined by the context. One definition of the term is compliance figure that is disproportionately astronomical to lead to retrenchment, plant closures, and enervate international competitiveness. This clarification involves hefty regulatory funding approximate to the economic influence of firms. Critics chronically assert that conservation expenditure is overly substantial in a macroeconomic gist, deviating considerable state fiscal resources from productive pursuits into abiding by ecological policies. On the contrary, evaluation of states’ estimated ecological investments amount to negligible single-digit totals respectively. Allocating two to three percent of gross domestic product on ecological conservation is implausible to give rise to any major detrimental economic implications.

Bearing in mind the dire conditions of the ecology, environmental expenditures aggregate to a trivial amount relative to similar national priorities such as health care, education and military defence. Developed countries budget an average of 25 percent of respective gross domestic product to protect individual health and the security of states, therefore it is pathetically meagre to invest only two to three percent in the health of the ecosystems upon which the economy really depends. Considers surface since certain benefits such as enhanced quality of life derived from conservation efforts are non-quantifiable whereas there are perceptible tangible economic costs.

Nevertheless, despite sizeable environmental protection costs, these regulations collectively yield significant counterbalancing advantages to a society. In addition, characterizing these admittedly substantial funding in definite values as a drain on the economy, siphoning off capital which could be consumed prolifically elsewhere, is off the mark. It is more accurate to infer these expenditures as outcome of citizens’ demands for ecological quality ameliorations. Apportioning resources to meet the market for environmental regulations should not be surmised as economic inefficiency. Hence, given that ecological conservation produces considerable offsetting benefits and is publicly appealed for, the state should revise its disapproving standpoint.

As ecological conservation entails enduring efforts and financing, transitory drawbacks are to be expected in the short run. When governmental bodies embark on protection schemes in the early stages, implementation of laws and measures such as sound development and consumption of water resources, agricultural restructuring, biodiversity conservation, as well as urban forestation and landscape upgrading will lead to layoffs and plant closures. Firms, primarily pollutive and energy-intensive money guzzlers, will be displaced to countries with less binding guidelines. Furthermore, the high preliminary capital elemental to reform pollutive practices will inflate cost of manufacture of exports hence enervating the competitiveness of local sectors in the global marketplace. For example, logging restrictions in Pacific Northwest region in the United States has irrefutably retrenched the masses in the indigenous timber industry. However, it would be ill-advised to forgo introducing ecological conservation programmes due to several intermediate challenges. Thus, ecological conservation should be pursued despite the primary economic deficit.

Therefore, traditional economics shows that ecological conservation does not prompt irrevocable pervasive detrimental fiscal effects in contrary to conventional wisdom. Nonetheless, detractors of ecological conservation raise moderately factual polemics. Pinpointing and deciphering these problem areas would be a laudable objective in ecological conservation hereafter. Administrations should repetitively scrutinize the marginal costs and benefits of ecological conservation course of actions as means to increase their net merits. There is undeniably leeway for development in ecological conservation but it is mercifully not the economic Frankenstein some would have us believe.

The connection between ecological conservation and the economy has been a subject of severe disputation for decades. Market analysts and policymaking committees of every vantage point seem to concur that a strong linkage prevails between environmental protection and the fiscal state; the controversy arises over the sign of the correlation coefficient. Conservationists contend that environmental protection facilitates economic growth and generate employment whereas detractors argue that environmental protection tends to be adverse towards economic development. In the latter case, environmental regulation stands accused of precipitating an extensive array of disadvantageous monetary consequences and resulting in a loss of global competitiveness. The conviction that ecological conservation gravely impairs the economy has become the centrepiece in the series of attempts of late to annul environmental legislation which aims to amend environmental quality. Concurrently, there is some significance in these animadversions of environmental policies. This essay intends to examine a diversity of claims concerning the economic costs as well as financial profits of ecological conservation. I champion for ecological conservation although it comes with several short-term sacrifices of economic returns. In the long run, the merits of ecological conservation should outweigh the fiscal loss and it is wrong to consider ecological conservation bad for the economy.

            Each claims that environmental regulatory expenditure does significant economic detriment rest upon the hypothesis that the costs are substantial. After all, relatively minuscule environmental funding would not give rise to association with negative implications. However, there are numerous possible interpretations of the term “large regulatory budget”, determined by the context. One definition of the term is compliance figure that is disproportionately astronomical to lead to retrenchment, plant closures, and enervate international competitiveness. This clarification involves hefty regulatory funding approximate to the economic influence of firms. Critics chronically assert that conservation expenditure is overly substantial in a macroeconomic gist, deviating considerable state fiscal resources from productive pursuits into abiding by ecological policies. On the contrary, evaluation of states’ estimated ecological investments amounts to negligible single-digit totals respectively. Allocating two to three per cent of gross domestic product on ecological conservation is implausible to give rise to any major detrimental economic implications.

Bearing in mind the dire conditions of the ecology, environmental expenditures aggregate to a trivial amount relative to similar national priorities such as health care, education and military defence. Developed countries budget an average of 25 per cent of respective gross domestic product to protect individual health and the security of states, therefore it is pathetically meagre to invest only two to three per cent in the health of the ecosystems upon which the economy really depends. Considers surface since certain benefits such as enhanced quality of life derived from conservation efforts are non-quantifiable whereas there are perceptible tangible economic costs. Nevertheless, despite sizeable environmental protection costs, these regulations collectively yield significant counterbalancing advantages to society. In addition, characterizing these admittedly substantial funding indefinite values as a drain on the economy, siphoning off capital that could be consumed prolifically elsewhere, is off the mark. It is more accurate to infer these expenditures as the outcome of citizens’ demands for ecological quality ameliorations. Apportioning resources to meet the market for environmental regulations should not be surmised as economic inefficiency. Hence, given that ecological conservation produces considerable offsetting benefits and is publicly appealed for, the state should revise its disapproving standpoint.

As ecological conservation entails enduring efforts and financing, transitory drawbacks are to be expected in the short run. When governmental bodies embark on protection schemes in the early stages, implementation of laws and measures such as sound development and consumption of water resources, agricultural restructuring, biodiversity conservation, as well as urban forestation and landscape upgrading will lead to layoffs and plant closures. Firms, primarily pollutive and energy-intensive money guzzlers, will be displaced to countries with less binding guidelines. Furthermore, the high preliminary capital elemental to reform pollutive practices will inflate the cost of manufacture of exports hence enervating the competitiveness of local sectors in the global marketplace. For example, logging restrictions in the Pacific Northwest region in the United States has irrefutably retrenched the masses in the indigenous timber industry. However, it would be ill-advised to forgo introducing ecological conservation programmes due to several intermediate challenges. Thus, ecological conservation should be pursued despite the primary economic deficit.

Therefore, traditional economics shows that ecological conservation does not prompt irrevocable pervasive detrimental fiscal effects contrary to conventional wisdom. Nonetheless, detractors of ecological conservation raise moderately factual polemics. Pinpointing and deciphering these problem areas would be a laudable objective in ecological conservation hereafter. Administrations should repetitively scrutinize the marginal costs and benefits of ecological conservation course of actions as means to increase their net merits. There is undeniably leeway for development in ecological conservation but it is mercifully not the economic Frankenstein some would have us believe.

As climate change begins to rear its ugly head, the call for environmental conservation has grown louder. If everyone consumed as many resources as Americans did, we could need 4.1 Earths to sustain the population of seven billion. Thus,environmentalists have been relentlessly campaigning for companies and countries to switch to green technology to satiate their energy or financial needs. However, some pessimists still concur that these efforts are futile, but I remain optimistic that humanity has realized the implications of global warming and is taking small steps to reduce their carbon footprint. Hence, one can contend that efforts to save the environment are certainly not merely empty promises.

Prima facie, it may seem obvious that the sheer number of international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are empty promises – as evident in the major fiasco of the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord. However, while international cooperation may be hard, regional bodies have been taking steps to be environmentally friendly because regional cooperation is more effective due to the fewer number of countries involved in the treaty. This is best manifested in the European Union’s (EU’s) environmental policies. Having the world’s largest and wealthiest consumer base, the EU has rolled out regulations on efficiency of motor vehicles and their emissions. Carmakers seeking to enter the market must meet these regulations. Toyota and Ford are forced to develop new technology to meet these regulations. Additionally, these regulations are applied to vehicles from the same manufacturers sold in other countries for product consistency, thus reducing worldwide emissions. Hence, it is conclusive that although international cooperation may come off as an ’empty promise’, pragmatic regional bodies like the EU have found ways to seize their opportunity to salvage this planet.

Besides regional cooperation, small communities in countries have come together to make changes in their ways of living to protect the environment, rendering the phrase ’empty promises’ fallacious. Benjamin Franklin once said,’when the well is dry, we will know the worth of water’. This quote has resonated well with many rural communities in developing countries that rely on agriculture or fishing for a living. In Thailand, depleting fish stocks in the Mekong River have severely affected the livelihoods of numerous Thai fishermen, driving home Franklin’s point about scarcity, prompting them to stop taking the environment for granted. Together with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), 14 villagers in Northern Thailand participated in the Thai Boon programme by setting up conservation zones around Mekong. Fishermen of villages like Ban Muang Choom observed that fishes were able to spawn inside the conservation zone, aiding in the historic protection of the ecosystem, resulting in significantly increased fish yields for fishermen. The economic benefits were a great incentive for the fishermen in Thailand, hence delivering promising benefits to the environment. It would thus be highly skewed for one to assume that humanity is completely incapable of saving the environment because of how multi-faceted this issue is, because even small communities like those in Thailand are doing their part to protect and conserve the environment.

More importantly, it is imperative for us to understand that the quest for environmental conservation has become even more possible in the present epoch because of the rapid advancement of technology. This has allowed us to turn to other green methods of satisfying our energy needs. For instance, Norway is investing billions in developing carbon capture and storage technology. Southern cities in France like Bordeaux and Marseilles use nuclear energy to fuel 40% of their daily energy needs. In comparison, traditional fuel sources like oil and coal produce carbon dioxide when burnt, a greenhouse gas that would further exacerbate global warming. The concepts of geothermal and wind energy are also gaining traction globally. Thus, one can see the correlation between the rapid advancement of technology and its unprecedented positive impact on the environment. Hence, it would be ignorant of one to claim that all efforts to save the environment are just ideas with no concrete action because governments have been actively trying their best to exploit whatever resources at their disposal to ensure that at least some of these promises made translate into action and not just blame it on the complexity of this global issue.

On a less hopeful note, some detractors think otherwise. Playing the role of the devil’s advocate, they believe that while efforts to save the environment are not largely empty promises because of the aforementioned points, there are some instances in which we have to concede that these efforts are in fact empty promises. This is because governments have many trade-offs to make when pursuing environmental policies. These trade-offs often conflict with their economic policies, and hence regardless of the number of treaties that they sign, both the people and the government are innately profit-oriented and would disregard the environmental damages that they inflict. In March 2015, then US President Obama submitted an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to the United Nations that would commit the US to reach a 26% to 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. This led to the US Environmental Protection Agency passing the Clean Air Act. However, would factories actually be willing to cut emissions, by increasing their cost of production by employing green technology, albeit at the expense of their profits? The answer is a resounding no, because of the inherently selfish desires of people. Thus, insofar as the people are not willing to work with their governments to save the environment, any form of intervention by the government would be merely an empty promise. Nonetheless, as I have elucidated earlier, it would be unfair to generalize all efforts to save the environment as purely ‘talk with no action’ because we must concede that in this interconnected world of today, countries are starting to get less self-centred, albeit obvious exceptions from emerging countries like China, and are trying their best to contribute to environmental efforts. Though it would indubitably take time for environmental promises to be translated into action, I believe that humanity is on her way to a green planet ion the distant future.

To sum it all up, the threat that humanity is posing to the environment is certainly a worrying one. We are constantly plagued with a myriad of humanitarian problems, so it would be harsh for one to assume that all our environmental efforts are just empty promises because we are tirelessly trying to deliver some of these promises, in small ways. International and regional cooperation is a sine quo non to addressing our environmental woes. As long as we can cooperate in small ways, like Thailand and Europe, I remain optimistic that efforts to save the environment are largely not empty promises.

Environment has been damaged by humans in a myriad of ways. Despite efforts to save the environment, it is believed the efforts are not enough to preserve the environment. This brings us to the question that if the environment can ever be saved by human efforts. The answer to the question is complex and requires an examination at multiple levels including local, national, and international efforts. Given the circumstances it seems like that saving the environment is a difficult task, however, people should not lose hope and give up on the efforts to save the environment because with collective effort environmental damage can be minimised if not completely reversed.

At an international level, there has been a constant debate about who should bear more responsibility to save the environment. There has been a constant tussle between the developed and developing nations each expecting the other to take significant steps to save the environment. The developing nations believe that the developed nations are the one who have caused most damage to the environment with rapid industrialisation. On the other hand, the developed nations believe that the developing nations should bear the responsibility because countries like China, India and Brazil are currently causing the most environmental damage and pollution. Despite this tussle both developed and developing nations are putting in joint efforts to save the environment. For example, China, a developing nation, considered to be responsible for major environmental damage has invested in clean technologies and has also committed to reduce carbon emissions. Thus, the gap between the developed and developing nations is narrowing and shows that they are committed to tackle the issue of environmental degradation with combined efforts. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.

Pessimists believe that saving the environment is a lost cause because economic growth and environmental conservation cannot go hand in hand. They point out the fact that if developing nations save the environment they would have to give up on economically friendly resources that cause the most damage. For example to save the environment many industries would have to reduce or prevent the use of fossil fuels, which are responsible for carbon emissions. They believe that it is not possible to protect the environment when many countries require copious amounts of energy to meet the increasing needs of growing populations and their goals of economic growth. However, their views are not completely correct because it is definitely possible to save the environment without compromising on economic growth. For example, countries like Indonesia in recent years have embraced green growth policies that place great emphasis on the value of natural resources and the environment, on the eradication of poverty through the creation of jobs, while at the same time ensuring equitable and sustainable economic growth. In developed nations like Europe, people are constantly working towards reducing the environmental damage by investing in alternative energy and people adopting environmental friendly practices. This clearly shows that the belief that economic growth and environmental conservation are mutually exclusive is false. Countries today are taking conscious efforts to save the environment and bring about change without sacrificing the economic growth and progress of the nation. Therefore, we should not give up hope in efforts to save the environment because one does not have to sacrifice economic progress in doing so. 

Many believe that green technology is the solution to all the environmental problems.Green technology in the form of biofuels, solar panels and turbines though efficient are not feasible because of the high costs attached to them. Countries like Germany and the US who have invested in green technologies have not seen a significant decrease in carbon emissions. Again proving that green technologies are not enough to save the environment. However, this should not be the reason to lose hope in saving the environment. This is because there are other green practices which countries could adopt to save the environment. . An example of this can be the World Wide Fund for Nature in Australia, Fiji and New Zealand, which has introduced blockchain technology to track the migration of tuna, allowing scientific researchers an insight into global fishing, vessel traffic, and the potential effects of overfishing. Similarly countries like Canada have tried to protect the environment by investing in climate-friendly technology leading to energy efficiency and sustainable urban transportation. These small steps ensure that environmental damage does not exacerbate. Thus, we should continue to save the environment by collaboration and joint efforts. 

It is difficult to save the environment when political entities are not willing to show commitment to the cause. Countries that have only economic interests in mind, cannot think beyond financial gains and political gains. As a result, politicians are not very keen to put in place policies and laws to protect the environment. An example of this can be Iraq, which is considered one of the most environmental degraded nations. The condition of land and water has severely deteriorated in Iraq due to poor governance, war, corruption and political neglect. Similarly in countries like the US, Donald Trump’s administration has been criticised for practices that are not environmentally friendly. An example of one such practice is the revision of the National Environmental Policy Act, the revised rules would allow builders of highways, pipelines, and other major infrastructure projects to no longer consider climate change when assessing their impact. Such countries lead people to believe that not much can be done to save the environment. However, there are other local political parties that are very environmentally friendly in their outlook, an example of such politicians include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have placed environmental advocacy at the forefront of their political agenda and have shown willingness to solve pertinent environmental issues. Similarly, in 2019 The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party, headed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, launched the world”s first environment friendly election campaign which measured  the total carbon released to the atmosphere from all vehicles bringing politicians, security officials, and supporters to rallies will and trees were  planted in every district to offset carbon emission. Such efforts prove that if there is enough political will, saving the environment becomes an achievable task. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.

In conclusion, while humans have been cruel in destroying the environment, they also hold the key to mitigate the effects of environmental damage. This is possible through change in mindset, implantation of environmental friendly policies and eco-friendly and sustainable practices at a local level. With combined efforts of various stakeholders the environment can be saved and one should not give up on the cause because of the obstacles.

Environment has been damaged by humans in a myriad of ways. Despite efforts to save the environment, it is believed the efforts are not enough to preserve the environment. This brings us to the question that if the environment can ever be saved by human efforts. The answer to the question is complex and requires an examination at multiple levels including local, national, and international efforts. Given the circumstances it seems like that saving the environment is a difficult task, however, people should not lose hope and give up on the efforts to save the environment because with collective effort environmental damage can be minimised if not completely reversed.

At an international level, there has been a constant debate about who should bear more responsibility to save the environment. There has been a constant tussle between the developed and developing nations each expecting the other to take significant steps to save the environment. The developing nations believe that the developed nations are the one who has caused the most damage to the environment with rapid industrialisation. On the other hand, the developed nations believe that the developing nations should bear the responsibility because countries like China, India and Brazil are currently causing the most environmental damage and pollution. Despite this tussle, both developed and developing nations are putting in joint efforts to save the environment. For example, China, a developing nation, considered to be responsible for major environmental damage has invested in clean technologies and has also committed to reducing carbon emissions. Thus, the gap between the developed and developing nations is narrowing and shows that they are committed to tackling the issue of environmental degradation with combined efforts. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.

Pessimists believe that saving the environment is a lost cause because economic growth and environmental conservation cannot go hand in hand. They point out the fact that if developing nations save the environment they would have to give up on economically friendly resources that cause the most damage. For example to save the environment many industries would have to reduce or prevent the use of fossil fuels, which are responsible for carbon emissions. They believe that it is not possible to protect the environment when many countries require copious amounts of energy to meet the increasing needs of growing populations and their goals of economic growth. However, their views are not completely correct because it is definitely possible to save the environment without compromising on economic growth. For example, countries like Indonesia in recent years have embraced green growth policies that place great emphasis on the value of natural resources and the environment, on the eradication of poverty through the creation of jobs, while at the same time ensuring equitable and sustainable economic growth. In developed nations like Europe, people are constantly working towards reducing environmental damage by investing in alternative energy and people adopting environmentally friendly practices. This clearly shows that the belief that economic growth and environmental conservation are mutually exclusive is false. Countries today are taking conscious efforts to save the environment and bring about change without sacrificing the economic growth and progress of the nation. Therefore, we should not give up hope in efforts to save the environment because one does not have to sacrifice economic progress in doing so.

Many believe that green technology is the solution to all the environmental problems. Green technology in the form of biofuels, solar panels and turbines through efficient are not feasible because of the high costs attached to them. Countries like Germany and the US who have invested in green technologies have not seen a significant decrease in carbon emissions. Again proving that green technologies are not enough to save the environment. However, this should not be the reason to lose hope in saving the environment. This is because there are other green practices that countries could adopt to save the environment. . An example can be the World Wide Fund for Nature in Australia, Fiji and New Zealand, which has introduced blockchain technology to track the migration of tuna, allowing scientific researchers an insight into global fishing, vessel traffic, and the potential effects of overfishing. Similarly, countries like Canada have tried to protect the environment by investing in climate-friendly technology leading to energy efficiency and sustainable urban transportation. These small steps ensure that environmental damage does not exacerbate. Thus, we should continue to save the environment through collaboration and joint efforts.

It is difficult to save the environment when political entities are not willing to show commitment to the cause. Countries that have only economic interests in mind, cannot think beyond financial gains and political gains. As a result, politicians are not very keen to put in place policies and laws to protect the environment. An example of this can be Iraq, which is considered one of the most environmentally degraded nations. The condition of land and water has severely deteriorated in Iraq due to poor governance, war, corruption and political neglect. Similarly in countries like the US, Donald Trump’s administration has been criticised for practices that are not environmentally friendly. An example of one such practice is the revision of the National Environmental Policy Act, the revised rules would allow builders of highways, pipelines, and other major infrastructure projects to no longer consider climate change when assessing their impact. Such countries lead people to believe that not much can be done to save the environment. However, there are other local political parties that are very environmentally friendly in their outlook, an example of such politicians include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have placed environmental advocacy at the forefront of their political agenda and have shown willingness to solve pertinent environmental issues. Similarly, in 2019 The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party, headed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, launched the world’s first environment-friendly election campaign which measured the total carbon released to the atmosphere from all vehicles bringing politicians, security officials, and supporters to rallies will and trees were planted in every district to offset carbon emission. Such efforts prove that if there is enough political will, saving the environment becomes an achievable task. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.

In conclusion, while humans have been cruel in destroying the environment, they also hold the key to mitigate the effects of environmental damage. This is possible through a change in mindset, implantation of environmentally friendly policies and eco-friendly and sustainable practices at a local level. With the combined efforts of various stakeholders, the environment can be saved and one should not give up on the cause because of the obstacles.