In recent years the environment has emerged as one America's top priorities amidst talk of melting glaciers and a warming globe. These concerns have spurred social movements and political legislation, but some fear that the rush to save the planet could have a crippling effect on the economy, pointing to the proposed Waxman bill to regulate carbon emissions as a prime example. Will new environmental laws be worth the cost?
Featured Image:
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Humankind has been screwed ever since man tamed fire. Those fires spewed pollutants into the air. As mankind proliferated, it developed more and more advanced tools to produce vegetables, which when consumed produced more and more methane gas. Well, now we have finally done it. We are all learning to say, "Pardon me." Good luck humanity!
It seems to me the primary cause of climate change and increased energy consumption ,is quite simply, TOO MANY PEOPLE! Older people trying to live longer,young people keep spitting out kids like puppies.It's not sustainable.Seems that everyone is too concerned about the survival of the human species. We are pretty much a live drainig parasite on the earth, living in total disregard for all the other species occupying this planet.If you really want to save the planet stop all of ego-centric mental masturbation , stop breeding and trying to live longer. You really want to GO GREEN? Live hard die young and make room for someone else.We aren't essential for the survival of this planet.
"Seems that everyone is too concerned about the survival of the human species."
Yes, being human beings we are rather concerned with the survival of our species.
"We are pretty much a live drainig parasite on the earth, living in total disregard for all the other species occupying this planet.If you really want to save the planet stop all of ego-centric mental masturbation , stop breeding and trying to live longer."
And are you going to be first in the suicide booth?
"We aren't essential for the survival of this planet."
No species is, given time new species will emerge to fill the places left by older species.
How do you ethically limit population growth?
Ethically, one should not be forced to limit the number of children they have. However, this would not be the most effective way to limit population growth.
Family planning is the answer to limiting population growth. More than 80 percent of the expected population growth will occur in poor, undeveloped, unprepared countries. This is because of a lack of education and family planning.
According to The United Nations Populations Fund, 42% of all pregnancies in developing countries are unplanned, and 26% end with abortion . With family planning this could change . For example,using family planning methods, between 1971 and 2007 Thailand changed its population growth rate from 3.2% to 0.8%: a change of 6.4 children per family, to 1.7.
Apart from family planning, empowering women can limit population growth. Historically, women tend to have fewer children if they live in societies where women's rights and education are valued.
Globally, 900 million women do not attend elementary school every year. Just teaching women how to read greatly reduces the amount of children they have.
Globally, if women are empowered and family planning is introduced, the rate of population growth will decrease. Thus, we will not have to deal with the shaky ethical implications of forcibly limiting population growth.
That is largely the conclusion that I have come to as well.
Though there is no ethical way to force a hard limit on the number of children that people can had.
We can lower the population growth rate by making family planing services available... giving women in poorer nations the same options that women in the wealthier nations enjoy. Improved education has a similar impact.
A side effect of this is improvements in the quality of living it these places, as well as increased political and economic stability.
I guess considering that my lifestyle choices aren't conducive to longevity,perhaps I'm already in the suicide booth.Personal choices with personal responsibility.
An ethical way to limit population growth would be to allow people the right and the options to end their own life. Our society is geered toward longevity and prolonging life no matter what the cost.People who are terminally ill and want to end their own life should be given the necessary care to do that. Dr. Kavorcean should never have been imprisoned. End of life options should also be made available to elderly people who have the cognition to make that decision. That comes from personal experience.There is no honor or dignity in suffering.
Perhaps another way to ethically limit population growth and this will really be unpopular,anti- abortion is not an option.fertility clinics are not an option. Longevity treatments are not an option. When the present population is at 6billion people and is projected to be at 9billion in just a few more years.People may have to readjust their thinking. It comes down to personal choices which are at the present time very limited. I'm not saying that any of this should be mandated but laws that limit individual choices aren't viable.
On one side you have a new watch or investment on wallstreet. You have X amount of cash left so that your AC can be at 65 when it's 110 outside or 85 inside when it's 32 outside. Just a Little comfort.
You can make mass profits burning the ozone layer or raping the wilderness so that you're son/daughter can never learn the value of a dollar.
On the other side you have a clean environment . Generation after generation will have clean air(Tax free). We are no longer dependent on oil foreign or domestic. (some new energy ) New jobs that do the same for the kids without harming mine.
There's much more on both sides.
Lets hear it.
If the choice is economic prosperity (meaning the rich get richer, poor get poorer) vs. save the planet (we don't die), YES pass the bill.
Economic prosperity is not 'rich get richer, poor get poorer'... working to better balance out humans impact on the earth does not mean an economic downturn.
Isn't it just a little insane to let the world's worst polluter -the US government- tell the rest of us how to protect the environment ? Talk about fox guarding the henhouse....
The communists were much worse stewards of the environment than the western democracies ever were.
It seems whenever our elected officials create new laws, citizens get screwed with higher costs. It should be clear that we should not be polluting our air and waterways, and for an incompetent government waiting 50 years to act is unacceptable.
As an example, Coal energy plants. Government should partner with these companies to either clean up or to convert. IT is in the best interest of the country. Laws that are also based on solid guidelines should be inacted, and if a company skirts this, then let the government take over ownership, fix the problem, then sell the business to the higher bidder. Unethical business practices is harming our country, such as energy ( oil ) and the recent wall street and housing crunch.
Need to walk lightly and carry a big stick!