In my opinion, we should direct a lot more time and energy into solving environmental issues like pollution, climate change, extreme human induced changes to the environment (such as mountain top removal), excessive waste, and inefficient use of resources.
Like we learned the first day of class, resources are scarce. Resources are limited, but we are acting like they are infinite in quantity. One example is coal. It has been the world's primary energy source since the industrial revolution. However, is has been predicted that society will use up all the coal left in the earth by 2050.
Scientists and economists both make predictions. They both can be wrong about those predictions, as well as not predict things at all (like the latest economy's plunge). Climate change is the most recent hypothesis that society is choosing to believe or not believe. Their opinions are influenced by three main factors: scientific facts, fear and the economy/finances.
People believe that the economy is the most important problem that should be focused on in America, according to the Gallup Polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118345/Smaller-Majority-Calls-Economy-Important-Problem.aspx). In a recent study by Gallup Polls, 85% of the sample thought that the economy's problems were more pressing, 12% environmental problems, and 3% had no opinion. Also, the Gallup Polls revealed that more people understand environmental problems, but believe it is exaggerated and do not find climate change to be a primary concern.
For the earth to be a concern, the economy must support earth friendly products, means of energy, and peoples’ willingness to change the way they use and think about resources.
People face trade-offs. The opportunity cost for buying that $6 package of Strawberries from California in the middle of winter may be lower than going without the fruit. People think that their purchase or products they use have no impact, or it is so small on the earth that it does not matter. However, they may think twice about buying a package of organic, locally grown, in season strawberries that are generally more expensive.
The economy is the most important factor in considering changing our lifestyles and basically, saving the world. People will only completely switch to organic or earth friendly products when it is cheaper. If there is a demand that fits that price range, Mankiw says that the product will be supplied to society. There are only a few people that want to, or can afford to buy organic, local, and invest in long-term green products (like solar paneled roofing). However, more products such as water efficient washing machines are finally affordable. In conclusion, environmental problems will only be focused on when the economy and peoples' checkbooks can support them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I cannot agree enough. People are continuing to destroy the environment (and thus, their resources) and still claim that it is not as important as other factors. They need to realize that, currently, we are not only limited to the resources that can be produced on earth, we cannot leave the planet if we destroy it so much that it is unlivable. Already scientists are speculating that we are undergoing another great extinction and losing species at an accelerated rate. As the environment continues to decay, however, naysayers dismiss the information presented, viewing it almost as scientific myth, and persist in carelessly destroying their only home. The environment must take precedence over other factors if we have any intention of saving it. I’m not saying we should entirely ignore things like the national debt or housing crisis; I just think we need to put a much higher emphasis on the environment. As a united whole, we should do everything possible to “go green”—and encourage others to do the same. Even simply recycling—an activity that does not have much “opportunity cost” involved—can help protect the environment.
ReplyDelete"Going green" one person at a time will make a big difference to start off. Making more earth friendly products cheaper will only benefit the environment as well. More fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuel sources are being looked at right now. There are ways to have a cleaner environment and still keep nice economic flow. Incentives on environment friendly products would be a good way to start.
ReplyDeleteI agree that incentives for environmentally friendly products would be a good idea. Unless people have a reason to "go green" I would guess that the vast majority wouldn't go out of their way to seek out more environmentally friendly products.
ReplyDeleteI agree that society should pay more than lip service to protecting the environment, but I'm not sold on the organic foods movement. I believe that the focus should be on improving the Eco-friendliness of more productive non-organic farms, as they provide cheap food desperately needed by the world's poor.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree with Ryan on that one. Organic food is expensive as hell compared to inorganic, a lot of it tastes like garbage (try some organic peanut butter, you'll go running back to Jif), and there is more output potential in inorganic food because there are so many more farms. Sorry, just my little rant about organic food from someone who tried to eat mostly organic food for an unsuccessful 2 weeks.
ReplyDeleteE
It's okay Rich--I believe that some organic food doesn't taste good too. If we support organic foods though, supply and demand states that there will be more supplied--maybe even in a better quality.
ReplyDeleteI believe we can make non-organic produce in a more energy efficient, less waste manner, which wouldn't equate to not using pesticides or fertilizers--but would be a start to safer foods and the environment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on both points, which is why I propose this sort of solution:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2009/08/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers.html
That's right, the government pays farmers to NOT grow crops in order to control the supply, and yet millions of people in the World are on food stamps with which they can only afford cheap, unhealthy, corporate-produced foods. It says that the program is one to reduce fertilizer and pollutant run off. BS.
Also, because it's technically an "environmental policy" organic farmers aren't heavily subsidized.
http://www.iscowp.org/articles/Vol15%20I%203%20The%20Future%20Belongs%20to%20Organic%20Gardening.htm
Here's my solution:
The government subsidizes organic farmers TO GROW MORE CROPS in order to increase the supply of organic crops. They buy all of the over-harvested inorganic crops like they did before they started paying farmers to not farm them in order to control the price AND support the farmers financially in the same way subsidies would. Then, instead of putting over-harvested crops in silos like they used to, they supplement food stamps with rations of the crops in order to reduce the amount of money given for food stamps. If the government bought too many over-harvested crops they could sell or donate them to nations with starving people.
I think this could work because an increase in the supply of organic crops that would result from the subsidies would lower the price of organic crops. Thus, price would no longer be as much of an incentive to purchase inorganic foods instead of organic. In addition, people would be able to eat the healthy fruits and vegetables on a regular basis, compared to the unhealthy, processed foods that are the best economic decision when using food stamps.