CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
With the economy in shambles and environment under threat of deforestation, global warming(allegedly), and the need for oil which is in need of more assistance and which would you help and why.
that's a toughy. I don't give a fuck about Global Warming, but I do think that if we became energy independent it would make life so much easier.
It would also probably help our economy as well.
But since the other side says environment specifically, I find fixing the economy more important. Lets face it, it could always use MORE help. What we need is a Progressive Corporate Capitalist system. I know, the name is long but that's the only hybrid system that I could produce in my head that would WORK and continue our acceleration that Capitalism has successfully done for us so far.
The deaths of weak corporations paves new road for stronger businesses. When the economy recovers, stronger businesses emerge to replace those that fail.
Another good thing to mention is that Crocs is failing.
Had Bush invested in the environment, those people could already be employed in green jobs. But because we cannot expand as fast as if we had already begun this process, they are out of work.
We can improve the economy by reducing global warming, but we cannot reduce global warming by improving the economy.
When one or two corporations go out of business, i'm totally cool with that. It's social Darwinism in a Capitalist world.
But when banks and health insurance companies are failing and the housing market plummets, millions of people are screwed over by that no matter what. We need to stop that NOW, and focus on environmental issues later.
that's interesting and all, but your mass extinction theory hasn't been proven to the point that WE'RE responsible for it or what direction it's actually going. after all, over the past 100 years the climate has gone up and down.
what we do know for sure is that the economy is currently fucked and needs some major patching up.
the environment can wait till later. or, until some new theory comes up (first global cooling, then global warming, in 20 years we can hope for global time rifts).
Global warming, global cooling.... It's all climate change. You're more hung up on lables than facts.
I happen to believe that every precaution should be taken. Not just because I believe in it, but because this is something so serious that I'd rather bet on it being true, than be sorry that I didn't.
Hitler didn't seem like a problem worth dealing with until it was too late.
We don't get so lucky as to have our apocalyptic weapons of God come out and tell us they're coming. This isn't a movie. We aren't going to discover the asteroid in just enough time to destroy it. We aren't going to stop the atomic bomb with 1 second left on the clock.
We have to prepare for climate change because we have a lot of evidence in it's favor, and the consequences of not preparing for it are apocalyptic.
There are also other bonuses to preveting climate change, both environmental and economic.
Actually, in order to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE in our effect on the environment would mean to eliminate ALL uses of carbon emissions. Eliminate ALL uses of paper and plastic. Eliminate ALL uses of any type of oil. Eliminate ALL uses of filtered water (because really, who needs clean water?).
In order for US to make a POSSIBLE difference, it would basically mean to eliminate most of everything that we use EVERY MINUTE.
Simply making hybrid cars and recycling won't do shit.
Not to mention that humans have been through much worse shit than POSSIBLE global warming. What we need to focus on is what we DO KNOW is true. We DID KNOW that Hitler was killing innocent Jews and political prisoners. To me, that's enough. But, unfortunately, the same attitude existed then that exists now "we don't need an unnecessary war". In fact, we didn't fight Hitler until we were attacked by the Japs. Just how we didn't fight Saddam until we were attacked by al-Qaeda. We knew that Saddam was threatening us with nuclear weapons and we knew that he mentioned plenty of times before that he was restarting his nuclear program, but we didn't pay much attention because it would have been considered an unnecessary war. Plus, all the citizens he murdered for shit reasons didn't matter enough either. What it took was an attack from a random enemy who's related somehow. We would have never fought Hitler were it not for Pearl Harbor... Whoa... off topic. But anyway, we knew the bad shit he WAS doing, so it doesn't relate to Global Warming, which still has many different theories.
I have attempted to debate you on this issue a million times, but almost every time you end up pussying out. If you want to argue the science of global warming (since you think it to be an unsettled issue) then I am perfectly willing.
What also confuses me, is that at the same time that you say that global warming probably isn't happening, you seem to consider yourself an expert on how we would need to stop it if it was happening. We can easily curb carbon emissions to the point where the warming effect will only be mild, if we have international cooperation from nations like China (Obama has already met with these nations, and they have agreed to cut emissions significantly in the next 40 years).
Recycling, has very little to do with global warming when compared to the burning of coal and other fossil fuels. It is however still important, because (as I told you in an earlier debate about paper vs. plastic) there is currently a giant patch of plastic in the middle of the pacific ocean that is larger than Texas.
Filtered water? WTF?
To sum up here is your argument:
-Since fixing the problem might require a lot of effort, let's instead do nothing.
-Because Hitler killed a lot of Jews, we shouldn't act on the science of Global warming
-Also, despite the fact that every major scientific organisation agrees that global warming is happening, there is still so much doubt and all these vague theories (which you convieniently neglected to mention)
So come on... I am very prepared for you to debate me on the science, because clearly one of us doesn't understand the facts of climate change.
I understand that it is a legitimate debate, and I don't claim to know everything about it.
My main problem is that other people seem to think that it is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO HAPPEN TO US SINCE GLOBAL COOLING!!!
the hysteria over it has always been my problem. I just feel we should focus more on something that we DO know is a major problem right now instead of something that is still in debate.
Let me put this in the simplest I can, so that you can understand it fully:
It is not in debate. There are no legitimate skeptics in the scientific community that have presented valid evidence that a) global warming is not happening or b) global warming isn't being caused by humans.
In a previous debate you brought up the republican's minority report on the climate change consensus. I then explained why the whole thing was bullshit. I'm not going to go through the whole thing but if you would like to bring up specific points made in the document, or any other scientific arguments against global warming I would be more than happy to address them.
Pyg, I understand skepticism, but there comes a time when doubt becomes unreasonable.
(Also, global cooling was never really considered a significant problem by the scientific community...only by time magazine. At the time of the publication on the issue about global cooling, more scientists were actually concerned about global warming, despite the fact that there had been a slight decrease in temperature. Listen to scientists, not the media.)
Doubt is actually very reasonable, especially when someone is willing to put more hysteria into an idea than they would into a well known fact where people are starving and dying in gutters.
Sorry if i got bigger problems.
the consensus is still valid and shouldn't just be dismissed because the independent scientists weren't part of some organization.
The points are simple. I don't care about which party believes in what. I disagree with Republicans on many things, and sometimes even think that they care more about corporations than they do about our lives. But the science behind global warming doesn't support that much that HUMANS are behind it. So why should there be so many unnecessary regulations and restrictions that only hurt us if we got bigger problems, like, failing banks and housing market.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
the consensus is still valid and shouldn't just be dismissed because the independent scientists weren't part of some organization.
That's not why the scientists statements were dismissed. The scientists ideas were dismissed because they were inconsistent with the evidence.
But the science behind global warming doesn't support that much that HUMANS are behind it.
Wrong
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
Alright, you almost did what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence, and you gave me an unattributed quote. Fine, I'll just explain the basic argument behind global warming and why CO2 emissions do have an effect. And like you I'll copy and paste (but at least I'm copy pasting my own words)
"The earth is warmer due to more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere which include CO2, methane and water vapor. Humans have caused CO2 and methane levels to increase dramatically (CO2: from 278 ppm in 1750 (Source), to 380 parts per million in 2007 (source; Methane: .7 ppb in 1750, to 1.7 ppb in 2007 (same sources)).
Looking at ice core samples, we can see that levels of CO2 this high have always been associated with both temperature spikes, and (looking at the fossil record) massive extinction events. In addition, there has never before been a spike in the levels of carbon dioxide this high.
In addition, the current warming does not fit with the cycle of warming and cooling that is observed in the ice core samples. This periodic warming and cooling is based on long-term changes in the earths orbit (known as Milankovitch factors). Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years.
We also know that all other factors that could be responsible for an increase in temperature, are in fact acting exactly as they always do. The sun hasn't strayed from it's steady eleven year cycle... there haven't been any tremendous volcanic eruptions or seismic activity that could be causing a change in the global temperature. In short, everything is normal but the greenhouse gasses, and, as I stated previously, the most significant factor in changing greenhouse gasses is human activity.
Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is humans are responsible for the extra heat."
So know, tell me which part of this you have a disagreement with, and while your at it take a look at this graph and explain why it's just a coincidence that 1) emissions 2)CO2 concentration and 3) emissions all show the same upward trend at the same time.
mainly because you act as if the amount of that we expel really are enough to automatically create warming. That somehow trees and plants stop doing their job. That, in fact, us humans are doing more than nature has EVER done in natural history.
and i forgot to say who said that:
Dr. Takeda Kunihiko who's the vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
First: Dr. Takeda Kunihiko is an engineer. If you wanted to see a doctor about your eye, would you go to a gynecologist?
I would ask you to tell me why Kunihiko thinks that CO2 emissions are not responsible for our current warming, but I already know that answer so I'll just address it here.
For millions of years, solar activity has been controlling temperatures on Earth and even now, the sun controls how high the mercury goes. - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko
This argument is fallacious for many reasons:
When talking about this in my previous argument I mentioned Milankovitch factors, but did not explain what they were. Allow me to do so now: the earth experiences long term changes in it's orbit having to do with 1) orbital shape (eccentricity) 2) axial tilt (obliquity) 3) Procession (axial rotation) and 4) Orbital inclination. These changes occur independently and periodically. They each individually have relatively little effect on the earth's climate, and often their effects cancel each other out. Once about every hundred thousand years, however, these effects come together to create a global warming or global cooling event. This pattern was first noticed by Milutin Milanković, a serbian cicil engineer and mathematician. By looking back at global temperatures from the past couple hundred thousand years, and comparing them to these cycles, Milanković was able to determine that these ice ages coincided perfectly with when all of these factors lined up (which is about once every hundred thousand years).
Therefore by determining when these factors will line up again we can determine when the next global cooling/warming will occur. Look at this graph for a visual of how we can predict these events: Milankovitch cycles. The next is not supposed to occur for about 20 - 30 thousand years.
None of this of course has anything to do with solar output, as Dr. Takeda Kunihiko suggested.
These Milankovitch factors, however, cannot completely account for the dramatic spikes in temperature. Take a look at this graph. Here you can see both the rises in temperature, and the levels of CO2, which correspond over the last 400,000 years. Correlation, however does not imply causation, and in fact in this case the rising CO2 is not what caused the initial temperature increase. As I already said, the initial spark for the temperature change was the long term changes in orbit. There are other forces at work however that amplify these climate changes.
One such example of this is polar ice. As the earth warms there is less ice. This means that less sunlight is reflected, and more is absorbed and radiated into heat. This means more ice melts, which there is more heating which means there is less ice which means there is more heating, and so on. This is known as a positive reenforcement system.
Another positive reenforcement system that contributes to the warming is greenhouse gasses. As I said, CO2 does not originally cause the temperature to increase, however, once the temperature does begin to increase oceans and soil heat up, releasing greenhouse gasses (CO2 and CH4). Through the greenhouse effect these gasses amplify the initial warming, which releases more greenhouse gasses. In this way, temperature and CO2 emissions feed off each other.
Once again, this has nothing to do with the sun. In fact, for the past 100 years (the time in which the majority of our current warming has occurred) the sun has been on a steady 11 year cycle. Don't take my word for it; look at this graph.
So is it that Dr. Takeda Kunihiko is simply unaware of these facts, or that he is intentionally misleading people. I would like to hope the former but I suspect the latter.
I mean really, how could the sun have any effect on the temperature when it's been relatively constant for the past hundred years? Kunihiko is filled with what scientists refer to as bullshit (it's a pretty technical term, if you want I'll explain it to you).
you act as if [1] the amount of that we expel really are enough to automatically create warming. [2] That somehow trees and plants stop doing their job. [3]That, in fact, us humans are doing more than nature has EVER done in natural history.
1. In only "act" like the amount of CO2 is causing warming because CO2 does cause warming (basic physics which I can explain to you if you don't understand it), and right now there is over 380 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere. In addition, humans having been pumping out tons of greenhouse gasses, so unless you can tell me another source from which the CO2 is coming from then we can only conclude that humans are what has caused both the increased CO2 and the warming.
2. I never said trees and plants have stopped doing their job, however the deforestation that has occurred from industrialization is undeniably significant, and is an ongoing process. Less trees mean less CO2 gets converted into O2. In addition, there is more CO2 in the air. In essence what you expect is for less trees to deal with more carbon, and the environment not to change. This logic is just plain silly.
3. As I have shown you with some of my graphs, the CO2 levels have not been much higher then 300 ppm in about a million years, and right now they're at 380 million. In addition "nature" is a vague term. Could you be more specific about what specific parts of nature you are referring to that could be causing these changes.
To this last point let me add that during each of the warming events I showed you (the ones associated with CO2), each one corresponded to a major extinction event in the fossil record. This means that natural or not, our current warming is likely to have similar results. Regardless of whether it's natural or not, shouldn't we try and stop this from happening? Tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis are all natural, but wouldn't you stop them if you had the power? Just something to think about.
So it will take the pearl habour of climate change for you to care about it?
Ps. Don't you dare bad mouth recycling. Recycling is not just about climate change. It's about conservation of limited resources. Same as hybrid cars, and plenty of other things you probably don't care about.
While I agree that something should be done about the economy, and that the negative effects of our current recession are serious, I would argue that far more people will suffer in the long term if we don't fix the environment now.
You can read my other arguments for the specifics, but for brevity's sake I will give you the highlights of what will happen if we allow climate change to continue unabated.
-Increased aridity leading to crop failures
-Rising sea levels that could displace millions of people in the next 100 years
-Better climate for bugs that destroy both crops and trees
-Mass extinction of animals, and general disruption of world ecology (this one, once done, cannot be undone)
So in short, there will be less food to support our ever expanding population, there will be millions of refugees, and the biodiversity of our planet will suffer tremendously. If this doesn't hurt the economy (and in turn the human species as a whole) more then our current recession then I don't know what will.
Capitalism has done the mankind good in the sense that life quality had improved drastically. It is done in the expense of our future generation. They would need to build the nature back to its balance. It might not be that bad if they able to build it back to balance. We might just destroy ourselves then.
Economist? Haven you heard of something call "Not finish eating your food for lifetime in a night?"
I have never fully understood your view. Yes, I believe global warming is very, very serious. Directly or indirectly it will cause much suffering and death. The ones who are going to suffer host, however, are not westerners in industrial economies. Our way of life has too many safe guards. If sea levels start to creep up we can move our homes; if there are massive droughts we have food alternatives; hurricanes might become more dangerous but when our levies fail we have the resources to evacuate fairly quickly. Non of these things can be said of the poorest billion.
They, the third world citizen: where because of how isolated and non-diversified their economy is; because of poverty and over population; because of corrupt governments and lack of infrastructure, they will feel the effects of global climate change both first and hardest. The average North American pockets close to $50,000 a year. A family of 4 could still live comfortably with only $10,000, as long as their expectations drop too -- no TV, no backyard, and a lot of rice for dinner. Someone making 5$ a day doesn't have that kind of income cushion. If a Vietnamese agri-worker's crop has a drought -- he starves.
So it seems to me that if one increased the standard of living of the worlds poorest to something comparable to western standards one is in-effect preempting or at least limiting the disastrous effects that global warming poses to humanity. So far as has been discovered the only mechanism to lift people out of this type of grinding poverty is capitalism and largely free trade. Thus, while we always attempt to help both, the economy is always first insofar as economic growth saves vulnerable human beings at once from the perils of today and the uncertainties of tomorrow.
"Capitalism has done the mankind good in the sense that life quality had improved drastically. It is done in the expense of our future generation."
Absolutely not. The worst case scenario (a very implausible and inconceivable scenario at that) is that future generations would be trying to live as if no economic growth had ever occurred -- with vulnerability, uncertainty, and much suffering. Their condition would be the same, therefore, if the industrial revolution had never manifested and capitalism never taken off in the first place.
but it would seem to me that the financial circumstance of the individual, namely those of a third world country, has no real bearing on the impact to those impacted, of an environmental collapse. Whatever that may be.
I would even say that as you pointed out very well, Westernized nations would survive extraordinarily well comparitively (compared to those dying of say the ocean rising two inches... yeah that's all it takes to kill millions) if the entire economy were to completely collapse but if the environment were saved.
Luckily, as is always the case with technology it seems, you do not have to take a step back to go forward two.
We simply must go forward with completely clean energy, and whether the environment is effected by it or no, one thing is for sure, the world economy, not just Western, would improve drastically.
Oh great one, we await your genius invention of free energy device that creates unlimited energy at no economic cost with zero pollution. Truly you have made Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann look like a total fool, for you have shown S = (k*log W) to be entirely incorrect, and that actually, the correct equation is S = (whateverwewish)!!!! Amazing your genius astounds us all. For now ashes and smoke can be freely transformed into candles, paper, Mahogany desks, and Al Gore bobbleheads. You have single handedly re-invented civilization, and the fundemental laws of the universe!!!! Now times arrow is but an arbitrary distinction misunderstood only by old guys like this:
Okay Willy Loman, if you think your such a hot salesman, then please peddle these free miracle inventions to some other gullible schmuck. Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
There is no reason to assume that if temperatures changed they would be worse. It is a religious belief to assume that temperature change caused by man would be bad, just because man caused them. If ocean levels rise, poor people can move their homes just as well as rich people right? Their homes are much smaller. Often they don't even have homes. Only the stupidest moronic movies show ocean levels changing fast. No reputable scientist is talking about more than 1 or 2 inches in hundreds of years. Gravity at that rate is a greater threat to homes than ocean levels rising. Why would you assume that temperature change would cause massive droughts? Flip a coin. You got 50% chance, right? Why not assume that mankind is helping by preventing the next ice-age? You say that some place is going to be too hot. What about Canada? What about Siberia? Are they going to get too hot also? Poor people are unable to gradually move North 1 or 2 feet a year? For each drop in the GDP more poor people die: there is less money for charity, government programs, etc. You could spend billions of dollars moving turtles across the road, resulting in less money for the poor. Every dollar government spends on solar panels is a portion of a dollar that they can not spend on poor people. Poor people, except in New Orleans, do not generally live behind inferior levies, while rich people have gold plated levies. You are just saying some of the stupidest stuff. People who live in Chicago, New York, and Tokyo all face the same natural disasters as each other, to a large degree. It sounds like you have a psychological need to write compassionate sounding things, instead of actually following logic to advocate the most obvious policy. Obviously we want to raise the standard of living of all people The only thing we disagree about is methods, perhaps, and motivation. But the whole question is environment or business? Obviously we need a balanced approach that is pretty meaningless unless we get into specifics. I don't think I understand you points at the end. You think the industrial revolution started capitalism? What are the important aspects of capitalism, to you? To me the important aspects of capitalism is freedom to sell your goods and services. This existed with cave men who were able to trade spears for meat. But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with spending money on the environment or the economy, from your perspective.
Obviously, the economic issues we are facing are massive. It seems to me that these must be fixed first, in order for us to then have the ability to focus on environmental issues. Addressing our environmental concerns requires money, and in our current condition, there is no money for this particular line item.
The economy wouldn't need fixed if the do-gooders would have a little bit of common sense. Somebody is on a crusade to save what doesn't need saving. OSHA, EPA, labor unions; are the problem, not the solution.
I deal with this crap everyday. The winning bid on a resent demolition job was $326,000. The asbestos abatement was 60% of the the total bid. The whole job could have been done for less than the abatement cost. There is something very wrong when a supposed hazard adds this much to a job.
OSHA requires you to wear a safety harness when working anything above 4 feet off the ground. This adds to the cost of a job. It hinders ones ability to work efficiently and you have to buy all the approved gear.
Unions cause companies to pay to much for help, UAW for example.
Forget the environment there isn't going to be anybody around to enjoy it. Can't afford to exist.
Economy need fixing but Environment needs saving. To fix an Economy there are two approaches, which is to let it correct itself which is free economy and the other is with intervention. Whether the economy has been fixed or not human still live on.
We are like on a massive wooden ship where we are now very concern about the speed the ship is going and the rate we are consuming food. All these squabble are going on when we ourselves are pulling planks off the hull on the very ship we are sailing.
Once we sink no matter how fast we sail it no longer matters, no matter how much food we conserve it does not matter much as well. If the ship sink we are all doomed.
People are suffering so badly in this economy that I believe we need to address this first if not in tandem with the environment. I seriously believe it can be done his way if the economy is strangethened so that we will have the funding needed to set ourselves free from overseas oil production and costs thereof.
I know you think people are suffering badly because of the economy but alot more people are suffering in a much worse way because of the environment and greed. Take a look at those who's drinking and bathing water systems are polluted due to mining or food shortages are caused through the destruction of their hunting and foraging areas, or next to slave labour of children to provide the western world with cheaper shoes. Not everyone chooses to live in a money oriented world but everyone does want a world to live in
Yes, blame the environment. It is the environments fault. Everyone point the finger of blame at the environment.
Oooooh, its soooooo unfaiiiiiir. Wa wa wa. Typical whiner mentality.
Blame everyone but yourslef. Heres an idea, go live in the tropical paradise of Honduras for a year, then get back to us. We will be dyyyying to know how it was. But dont bring any medicine or western supplies... that would be greedy!
The economy doesn't need MORE help, per se; it just needs to be fixed first. If we fix our economy, we will be better able to fund the fight against "global warming."
Fix the economy. There is no such thing as environmentalist. just hypocrites. The proof of this lays within themselves, they own cars that put pollutes in the air, they buy non biodegradable items, they use electric generated by coal fired power plants, etc. Are they really concerned at the environment or just wanting notoriety?
what the people supporting fixing the environment need to realize is the fact that without fixing the economy there is no money to fix the environment.
How could we fix the environment if we have no money to fix it with? We don't really have a choice as to which one we would want to fix. If our economy is in recession, then we really don't have the means to spend any more money on a greater cause. If our economy was deemed efficient though and there was a choice between investing in our economy to make it grow, or investing in the environment to make the world a better place to live, then I would choose the environment. On this particular question, however, the only possible answer is the economy.
La actividad más importante del hombre es la economía, primero nos alimentamos para poder hacer las diferentes acciones. Sin embargo no basta con expresar esto, porque al estar todo concatenado, son determinantes las relaciones sociales, y en este aspecto, que no haya explotación y constreñimiento en contra de los trabajadores, las gentes, los pueblos y las naciones, es clave respetar la autonomía y la soberanía. No basta con que hayamos superado la comunidad primitiva, sino que la esclavitud, el feudalismo (servilismo, monarquismo) y el no reconocer el valor del trabajo por lo producido, crea conflictos que no se resolverán hasta que valoremos a cada quien por lo que aporta a la sociedad y comencemos por los mas necesitados. Aplicar la ciencia, la tecnología y desarrollar una cultura avanzada, que rija la fraternidad predica de manera vacía por el capitalismo. Abandonar los rezagos del individualismo, el grupismo, el utilitarismo y la componenda.
First I should point out that the environment has gone through millions of years of natural disasters, asteroids, volcanic eruptions, and mass extinctions and still survived. I really don't think a century of human activity is going to catastrophically mess things up like all the environmentalists seem to believe. It would be prudent to clean up our act, but right now the economy is a more pressing issue.
Fixing the environment, which I believe to be a euphemism for "lessening our dependence on oil", requires money. Lots of money. At the moment, we have no money. If we are to develop alternative energy then we had best do so when we are wealthy again and can do so properly. To the opposition: where is the money supposed to come from if we don't fix the economy first?
The environment is very important. However we will be able to help it more when we have a stable economy and lots of 'spare money' to spend on new and existing green technologies. Also at the moment the economy is in a situation in which, if anything gets any worse, human lives will suffer through homelessness, and a lack of resources to help those in our increasingly imminent natural disasters, which will indirectly go against human rights
It is impossible to fix the environment before the economy. Economy creates wealth, so the more wealth is created, the more we care about the environment. Protecting the environment eventually comes.
Some ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot.
American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment. When people can't affording plumbing their urine and feces end up in drinking water. When people are desperate, they don't care about the environment as much.
The most polluted places are in the poorest places, and so poverty is bad for the environment. It takes money to invest in green energy. Every country is beginning to recognize the value of a clean environment for tourism, quality of life, health of their population, and efficiency. While it is true more money results in more consumption, we are getting better at producing products and energy in an environmentally sustainable way.
Poor native Americans used to set fire to the prairie, running bison off cliffs, so they could eat a small portion of the meat. This is a good example of the bad affects of poverty on the environment.
Poor people cook their meat with fire. That is much worse for the environment than natural gas, or electricity.
Poor people burn garbage to keep warm releasing toxic chemicals into the environment.
Nothing that happens to the environment matters, except to the extent that mankind is able to take ourselves and as much biodiversity off this planet with us, because the sun will burn out, and destroy all life on this planet.
If we don't care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt. Perhaps we should spend a billion dollars a year preventing global warming, but the United States should not spend 100 trillion dollars a year. We don't have that much money. Even if we did, it isn't worth it.
There are hundreds of very costly things we could piss our way around, that are not worth it.
We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don't cost very much. There are many things that we can do to help the environment that don't cost very much. We should harvest some of the dead wood in the west, instead of letting in burn.
It wouldn't cost much to bring elephants back to North America, and would be good for biodiversity.
Outlawing buildings less than 2 stories could help the environment by reducing sprawl and wouldn't cost much.
Mulching is a good use of resources
Introducing pink flamingos to the Salt Lake would increase biodiversity and wouldn't cost much
We should bring ostriches back to North America.
It wouldn't cost anything to require homes to put most of their windows facing south, and this simple rule could improve home heating in the winter, and reduce heating in the summer, and could be often be done without wasting land.
It cost less per mile to use electricity or natural gas.
Green energy is a pretty good investment for our country, even if it has a 30 year pay-back, because we hope to have a country in 30 years.
It doesn't have to cost more to plant a fruit tree than a decorative tree, but growing local fruits and vegetables is good for the environment.
We can design cities so they are smarter without using more money. It doesn't cost much more to retain run-off water.
It wouldn't cost much to replace a good portion of lawns with natural vegetation, and it could reduce labor, money spent on lawnmowers, time spent mowing the lawn, and would result in less pollution, as 2-cylinder motors are not very efficient.
We should do a cost-benefit analysis for all expensive government programs. We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in. The fact that we don't do cost benefit analysis in government proves that politicians don't really care about making the world a better place, but would rather play stupid games, and be seen as increasing spending, without caring that any goal is actually met. It is a victory of symbolism over substance.
Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideas
One EPA ozone regulation has been estimated to cost over 90 billion in new cost, and the loss of 7 million jobs.
There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways.
A strong America can prevent wars. Wars are bad for the environment. If American businesses are unsuccessful, american power will diminish, and the world will be less stable, and more likely to go to war.
We should care more about the environment when our economy is healthy. Because the sun will burn out destroying all life on earth, we should ensure that the long term survival of our species is more important than the long term survival of plants or other animals, as we are the only life form that can take other life forms off the planet. We should seek for environmental balance, but not before we have vanquished those who would deny human rights. We can't spend 100% of our money on the environment, and 100% of our money on other priorities. We have to choose.
To what extent we can improve the environment, it will be through the efficient use of scarce resources. The best way to find the most efficient use of finite resources is free market capitalism. Therefore, if you fix the economy, by allowing the free market to function as it is supposed to, you are already doing the maximum you can to reduce the negative effects of the wasteful use of scarce resources.
I don't think I will vote for this side, but they must work in balance, otherwise, the growth of economy can be a source of environmental catastrophe. If you are working on manufacturing and industrial firm, regardless of how technology you use, you must know how to become creative, converting industrial waste to renewable energy is a example of balance ideology.
Despite what many people will tell you, Global Warming has been proven to be a scam. Yes a third of the ice on earth is shrinking, but another third is growing, and another third is doing absolutely nothing. Do we need to be careful not to destroy the planet? Sure. Are we doing any real damage with non-eco cars and the like? Nope. If you want to talk CO2 production, termites and cows have us beat. Less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from humans, and guess what, that isn't going to change any time soon. The economy needs fixed first, because that will affect more people more rapidly.
Well we do need to grow cotton and such, but the environment is not as fragile! The economy can collapse easily, but the environment fixes itself over time (yes, many many many years, but it's not like the economy can miraculously get better without our intervention).
You do acknowledge that for the environment to fix itself would take a long time. From your argument however, I'm not sure you understand how long that would actually take, so let me put this into perspective for you.
The human species, in its modern form, has only been around for a couple hundred thousand years. Civilization has existed for around 10,000 years. This means that recorded human history is less than 10,000 years old. In addition, as I'm sure you already know, the United States is 233 years old.
Okay now that we have some context, let's look what this means for us.
As you can see, throughout the majority of human history, and all of civilized history, humans have lived in world with an average temperature that is more, or less stable. What you can also see is that there is a trend of periodic warming and cooling that seems to be occurring about once every 100,000 years. This periodic warming and cooling is based on long-term changes in the earths orbit (known as Milankovitch factors). Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years.
What does that mean for us?
Well, it means that, unless we try to solve the issue of climate change, we are going to experience a global environment that is significantly warmer than what we're used to for over 2-3 times the the length of recorded human history.
Why is that a big deal?
Well, increased temperature is going to have a number of adverse effects. For the sake of brevity, I will ignore rising sea levels, and massive extinction of animals and instead focus on how plant life will be effected. First, aridity will cause crop failures to dramatically increase. This means that it will become much more difficult to support our ever increasing world population. Incase you haven't figured it out, this means that tens of millions of people will likely die from starvation.
There is one type of life form that the climate change is good for: bugs. In many northern ecologies, cold winter temperatures that can last from a few weeks, to several months are necessary to keep populations of bugs under control. Without this cold weather, bug populations decimate plant life. In addition, plants grown in CO2 rich environments are more prone to being destroyed by pests. This is due to the fact that the natural defenses these plants have are not produced as well in higher CO2 environments. The bugs that eat these plants live longer and produce more offspring.
Now compare this to the fact that economies come and go, and the idea of an economy is only a couple thousand years old. In all likelihood, the current climate change that we are experiencing is likely to have effects that last longer then the U.S. will even exist.
I would also argue that the effects of climate change will have a much more adverse effect on our economy in the longterm then the current recession ever could have. If there is less lumber from dying trees, if there is less available food from dying crops, and if literally millions and millions of people are displaced by rising sea levels, then you can be sure that the world's economy will suffer.
I understand that the environment is slow on fixing itself. It takes thousands upon thousands of years for minuscule change. But it really shouldn't take too long to fix the economy and get us 180 degrees from the recession. We're on our way there, but I think we have some work to do. Of course, I promote multitasking. ;)
"Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years."
I'm not saying that's normal, but I'm certainly not saying it isn't. Why is it that once scientists predict something based on past data, the same must occur in the future no matter what? The data can suggest an outcome, but it's never 100% fool proof. Maybe the prediction was another 20,000 to 30,000 years, but in reality it was supposed to be 10,000 to 15,000 years. We don't know. Sure, I agree we are speeding it up slightly, but I honestly don't think human beings have caused as much effect as before our time, what with volcano eruptions, meteor strikes, and the countless amount of animals with flatulence issues. :) lol
Why is it that once scientists predict something based on past data, the same must occur in the future no matter what?...We don't know.
What are you talking about? Scientists aren't claiming to have magic crystal balls that see the future, they're just drawing conclusions from the available evidence. Obviously when deciding future actions we have to look at past data in order to make an educated guess as to the best course of action.
I honestly don't think human beings have caused as much effect as before our time, what with volcano eruptions, meteor strikes, and the countless amount of animals with flatulence issues. :) lol
And you're basing this view on what exactly? Are you not aware that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere far exceeds that of any time in history? Do you not understand how the greenhouse effect works? Have you looked at any of the information andsoccer has provided here and in other debates?
Yes. I have looked at it and I fully understand the concept of global warming and greenhouse effect (not as much as somebody who studies it, but as much as the average person.)
Understanding the concepts of two of the many problems facing our environment does not qualify you to assess the state of the environment today or forcast it's future.
And that said, I'm sorry to say that you probabbly know more than the average person. But probably less than the average fourth grader....
I agree wholeheartedly with your idea of multi tasking, and in fact that is what Obama is trying to do: create jobs by making our nation more reliant on renewable energy as opposed to fossil fuels.
The issue is, we must do something now about the current warming, otherwise it will be to late. Here's why: Imagine a seesaw with balls balanced perfectly on either side. A small touch to one side causes the balls to role, making the seesaw even more out of balance. The more the seesaw becomes out of balance, the faster the balls role. The faster the balls role the more the seesaw becomes out of balance. This is an example of a positive feedback system.
A similar example can be seen when it comes to climate change. A small warming, can cause changes in the environment which cause warming to accelerate. In other words, more warming means more warming. For example: as the earth warms, the polar ice caps begin to decrease in area. This means that there is less ice and more land/seawater exposed. This means that less sun is reflected into space by ice, and more is absorbed and radiated into heat. Obviously this means that there is going to be more warming, and therefore more ice melting.
Another example of a positive feedback system can be seen in the melting permafrost. As permafrost from arctic lakes melts, it allows for the growth of methane forming bacteria, and releases stored CO2. This in turn speeds the warming process.
My point in all this is that if we do not act quickly then the warming that was originally triggered by humans will be out of our hands.
Here is a great video that talks about these positive feedback systems if my explanation wasn't sufficient for you to understand the idea: Polar Ice Update
Why is it that once scientists predict something based on past data, the same must occur in the future no matter what?
That's because scientists don't shake a crystal ball. Obviously as more data comes along, then we will have a better understanding of what is happening, but to wait and do nothing while we collect this data is irresponsible when we already have a good idea of what is going on.
Maybe the prediction was another 20,000 to 30,000 years, but in reality it was supposed to be 10,000 to 15,000 years. We don't know.
By that same logic it could be another 40,000 to 50,000 years. However, this is not a guessing game. Allow me to explain why scientists know that this will not be happening for another 20 - 30 thousand years.
When talking about this in my previous argument I mentioned Milankovitch factors, but did not explain what they were. Allow me to do so now: the earth experiences long term changes in it's orbit having to do with 1) orbital shape (eccentricity) 2) axial tilt (obliquity) 3) Procession (axial rotation) and 4) Orbital inclination. These changes occur independently and periodically. They each individually have relatively little effect on the earth's climate, and often their effects cancel each other out. Once about every hundred thousand years, however, these effects come together to create a global warming or global cooling event. This pattern was first noticed by Milutin Milanković, a serbian cicil engineer and mathematician. By looking back at global temperatures from the past couple hundred thousand years, and comparing them to these cycles, Milanković was able to determine that these ice ages coincided perfectly with when all of these factors lined up (which as I said is about once every hundred thousand years).
Therefore by determining when these factors will line up again we can determine when the next global cooling/warming will occur. Look at this graph for a visual of how we can predict these events: Milankovitch cycles.
Sure, I agree we are speeding it up slightly, but I honestly don't think human beings have caused as much effect as before our time, what with volcano eruptions, meteor strikes, and the countless amount of animals with flatulence issues. :) lol
Humor aside, the current amount is CO2 in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. In the past couple hundred thousand years, CO2 has never gone much above 300 parts per million. Incredulity is not a valid argument.
Uh, yah it can. Countries will bounce out of recession eventually with or without gov. intervention. The difference is in duration and severity. Before the state became active in trying to keep the economy stable economies would be in periods of growth just as often as in periods of recession. They were horrible and lasted years. Nowadays recessions last on average only a couple years and we have serious ones only a couple times a century. Nevertheless, it is not true that an economy can't pull itself out of a recession given enough pain and time as evidence of the 19th century.
Well, only if you insist upon modern accoutrements like plumbing, water, electricity, transport, medicine, etc.. but these are implicit to any argument communicated over the internet.
sooooo.....BOOOOYAAAAAAAA
Of course if you disagree, the only solution is to go live in a malaria infested swamp without any electronics, quinine, or mosquito nets, map, gps, or viagra pills. Only then can you complain you fucking hypocrites.
Economy in this world is ever changing. Like it or not we had evolved so much over the years of mankind life. One thing that had never changed is the treatment to the environment. Fixing the environment is not as difficult as most think. It is to build an economy that is more accommodating to the environment.
The economy now is build on the basis of ignoring the environment as it is has a vast reserve that we cannot finish using. Just like financial product had evolved from private to group products like funds and stuff. Draining on the reserve had been from individual like burning of firewood to chopping down of whole forest for the world community.
Fixing the environment will eventually fix the economy because we must accept the fact like good weather might not necessary help the economy but a bad weather will definitely devastate the economy. With no home how do we build our country?
Economy needs a shift in its focus. Instead of being a resource draining economy to a more of a mankind self sustaining kind of economy. We create energy with minimum pollution to earth and we create product from what we already has. People pay organization to tackle environmental issue. Plant more trees from better environment. Instead of paying $200 for a air purifier, pay $200 on a tree for the community.
Remember $2 million of estate left for your family will diminish in its value over the years but $2 million of environment saving effort you contribute will be felt for centuries.
I completely agree with this and I think that all the people who want the economy to be fixed first will change their view when the world floods because the polar ice caps have melted.
The environment is forever; the condition of Earth affects the entire world and will affect the future as well as the present. The economy is a situation that is very much rooted in the right now and is affecting a (relatively) small amount of countries, although the countries that are being affected are the largest contributors to the world economy. Regardless, we need to take care of our home before we can worry about money.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Recent research is providing us with evidence that the paradigm that in order to fix the environment you have to sacrifice economics, is wrong.
The current economic model is wasteful and productivity can rise if we are more mindful of our resources and manage them well. We have to be creative and stop this line of thinking... sustainable development IS possible.
Well you can't really say "the economy" or "the environment" because you need to look at issues on a case by case basis. For example, offshore drilling would probably provide more benefit to the economy than damage to the environment, so we should do it. On the other hand, global warming is a serious threat due to rising sea levels and because it could cause widespread crop failure. In this case we should take action to prevent it even at (short-term) cost to the economy. Failing to do so would cause much damage to the environment and be worse for the economy in the long run.
Our planet is sick. We need to get off oil and convert to alternate energy. Global Warmingis 50-50 man made-and natural. half and half. we still need to stop treating our planet as a big waste-basket.
Indeed, our planet is sick, very sick, that is why the only solution is a MASSIVE ENEMA to purge mother earth of her sickness. A few H-bombs in mount Vesuvius and a few more in the mid Atlantic ridge aught to do the trick.
I would go so far as to say that I think we should stop supporting any economy who is so blatantly sticking their tongue out in our faces by totally disreguarding the world environment soley for the economical gain. It totally sucks how some countries are doing everything they can to not sacrifice the environment, at the cost of unemployment and non development and other countries are mowing down important forests, and allowing factories to spew out pollution and undercutting the careful countries prices, further adding to their economical burden. Although I think we need to look after the environment I think we also need to make it a world wide thing. Jobs for our people are important too. We need to keep it in perspective.
the economy is not a stand-alone entity. it is a system of forces (governmental, market, etc) that exist collectively. it exists in due to our own demands. the economy extends beyond the concept of the "market" as it incorporates the tools and forces we use to push/pull the market (such as regulation).
studying economics, one learns that there is no silver-bullet in dealing with it. that's to say, neither monetary or fiscal policy (the two primary tools employed by society/government) to force economic outcomes are proven.. not imply that we can not affect the economy, but to say that we can not specifically control or impact it in guaranteed, measurable ways.
that said, we can make the most impact by adjusting our behaviors that are known to impact our environment. furthermore, the economy responds to constraints. for example, when there was a demand for increased food, the market (a major piece of the economy) responded not only by producing more livestock, but additional, smaller markets formed, such as the railways, to meet the upstream demands.
In the same way, as the global community applies regulation and requirements aimed at helping our environment, it will force new markets to evolve. these new markets help diversify and grow our existing economy, making it more robust and more resilient to downturns (effect of diversification).
so, in short, to move forward with efforts to improve the environment, we'll see emerging markets and all that goes with them (new jobs, new industry types, new skill sets, new resource demands) that, in turn, improve our economy by default.
finally, from a personal standpoint, the environment can exist without a robust economy. an economy can't exist without a supportive environment. and finally, with our without a healthy economy, WE can not exist without a stable environment.
I have to say that I don't find the components of this dichotomy as mutually exclusive as the question would imply. The case for the preservation of a life-sustaining environment seems to need no defense from me, but I will add that fixing the economy, to my mind, would help to preserve the environment (depending of course upon what we mean by "fix").
The current system of credit management should be more personal, more constructive with regard to long-term societal goals, and more congruent with the concept of our species living amongst others upon which we depend. If mankind, in our quest for man-made credit, endangers the natural order which can grant us natural resources upon which to build a more dynamic, more sustainable, and more environmentally responsible economy, this will be our tragedy and their will not be an ear around to hear of it when we have failed our obligation to our planet and to each other.
IF THE ENVIRONMENT COLLAPS, NO LIFE WILL REMAIN HERE.
SO IF POLITICIANS WORK FOR THE VOTE, TELLING NONSENSE TO BOOST ECONOMY, BY PRODUCING LOT OF USE & THROW ARTICLS LIKE CHINA MAKE, & POLLUTE THE ENVIORNMENT THEN, NO MORE DREAM OF LIVE HERE LONGER U STUPID, RASCAL POLITICIANS
Everything political aside, these are both big problems that effect everyone.
But in the end the economy is a crapshoot, and will always be up and down. But the environment is precious and limited. So while we should focus on fixing the economy by investing in fixing the environment.... I feel the environment is much more important.
I guess in the long run, it is- especially after every major government on Earth collapses. lol. But since the environment has been known to fix itself over the centuries and the economy affects more people right now, I think we should work on that first. Besides, as I stated on the other side, you need money from the economy to help fix the environment. ;)
Thats why I suggested we fix the economy by fixing the environment.
I conceeded that both are important for many reasons. But I happen to believe that yes, the environment fixes itself, but it may get a lot worse before it gets better. So while the environment will eventually survive us, will we survive it?
I don't want to take that chance. The environment is more important to me.
Yes, because a bunch of bonobos fucking each other all day are infinitely superior to you human scum, so stop typing on your computer right now, find the nearest biped, and start humping! Its for mother earth dammit, so fuck away.
There is a lot more to this question than meets the eye. Mainly, who will be focusing, and how.
In any case though, we need to do both. Until we make up our minds on the two questions that I've stated above, we should all do our own parts, in each field. The economy, because our own personal financial situations are the trees of the economy's forest. The same goes for the environment, if we undo something, as individuals, the most that we can do is to redo it.
Basically, we each have to be responsible for everything. Politics concerning these issues too, because we as individual we have the power through government to do things politically, we have to deal with politics as well... but some people seem to think that too many people in government ruins government... so there's the first hint of "who", that I mentioned earlier.
I tend to think that people aren't being responsible enough, in any way, but that this is caused by a social illness of sorts. Consumerism, capitalism, the fear of socialism, our dependance on the media, etc. It's a huge problem, seemingly all encompassing, universal, and it is becoming more and more native to our society every day. We need to start rejecting this lifestyle, and start living realistically.
There was a time when most of the goods made and sold in America were goods that would increase our GDP... those were things that people wanted to buy! Not HiDef televisions or 20" rims from China, Japan, and Taiwan, they were tractors, or mills, or sewing machines, or property, or whatever else would help them work... built in America, for money... and then used to make more money elsewhere.
Our social decay is our complacency, our unwillingness to buckle down, and our lack of education or, more importantly, our lack of concern. We just don't care as we should. Go into any bar or pub, watch people... they're drunk and over 21, the burden of the nation is on them... watch what they do... listen to what they say. NOTHING OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. It's always about someone else, or about something that happened to them... or what they were told to think about this or that. It's never like "Fuck guys, what are we going to do? What is the problem real problem, because this shit isn't working anymore."
Anyhow, I'm rambling now. Point is, be responsible.
Drunk political debates are a favorite passtime of mine.
Yes, there are some guys and gals who don't know shit. But the only reason you think popitcs, or other issues of importance, can't be discussed in concurrance with drinking is because those people talk so loud.
The environment, because it affects a slew of living creatures, and not just people. Since our actions are having an impact on every other living system in nature, we ought to fix that first, and focus on the economy second.
Furthermore, people only want to fix the economy because it's a problem that is here and now. The environment, on the other hand, is a problem that can be handed down and made the problem of our children and our children's children. We cannot keep up this intergenerational tyranny any longer.
On the grand scale of things human activity has a very minor effect on the environment in comparison to all the other natural occurrences in earth's history. In contrast, the economy is greatly influenced by human activity and needs to be attended to now. Economic issues can plague later generations just as bad if not more so than the present day environmental issues.
Every life support system is in decline. Biological diversity is decreasing at an alarming rate. Natural occurrences are not to blame. We are.
The earth will, of course, survive. But we may not, nor may many other species. This is of a MUCH higher concern than the economy, which is saying a lot considering how big that problem is.
I understand the need to fix the economy, but the environment has been ignored since before the economy was an issue, so it's not an excuse for our inaction.
Finally, economic issues only plague human generations. Environmental isues plague everything alive.
Margaret Thatcher, the conservative prime minister of the U.K. in the '80's, was the first major politician to point out the dangers of global warming. Now conservatives are towing the opposite line because the oil companies (in which many Republicans have a vested interest in) told them to.
By the way, the effect of humanity on extinction is comparable to the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Why put something ahead of another? You can fix the economy and the environment at the same time. In fact, you can help fix the economy by fixing the environment! Here are some ways:
- Emissions trading provides business opportunities.
- Renewable energy projects will create work and more business opportunities.
- Reducing dependence on foreign oil, therefore reducing costs.
- Cleaning up land and waterways will create huge amounts of work and improve tourism.
Maybe if Brexit hadn't happened, we wouldn't need to fix the economy, so therefore the environment gets my vote because it's not the environment's fault that the UK is in the state that it's in. So if the economy collapses so be it. The 52% brought this upon themselves and everyone else.
The environment is here to stay, whether or not we are a part of this world is moot. It sustains us more than the economy does, even in another stock market crash it's possible to sustain yourself by farming or trading goods, you are less likely to survive if the environment gets destroyed.
