CreateDebate


Debate Info

64
93
the economy needs more help the environment first
Debate Score:157
Arguments:95
Total Votes:171
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 the economy needs more help (50)
 
 the environment first (45)

Debate Creator

wolfbite(431) pic



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.

the economy needs more help

Side Score: 64
VS.

the environment first

Side Score: 93
4 points

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
7 points

It's nice to know that thats how you feel.

Now tell us Why?

Side: the environment first
2 points

lol. Deafening silence.

.................................

Side: the environment first
ThePyg(6761) Disputed
2 points

about why the economy needs more help?

well, because there are millions of people in poverty and right now corporations are failing left and right...

that's probably why i feel that way.

Side: the economy needs more help
G00dEgg(3) Disputed
3 points

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?"

Side: the environment first
2 points

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
2 points

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
G00dEgg(3) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: the environment first
1 point

I say the economy (even though we are going at it wrong). Gloom and Doom, broken models would have us believe that the environment comes first.

Side: the economy needs more help

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
wacko(114) Disputed
1 point

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

Side: the environment first
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

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!

Side: mother earth demands blood sacrifice
1 point

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."

Side: the economy needs more help

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?

Side: the economy needs more help

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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.

Side: the economy needs more help

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.

Side: the economy needs more help

The economy needs more help. We can't let something like this put us further in debt and destroy America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orTEyYR87iI

Side: the economy needs more help

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?

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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

Side: the economy needs more help

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

It's simple: The economy so that we are stable enough and have enough money to help save the enviroment. Basic.

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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.

Side: the economy needs more help

Right, because free market capitalism is the only system. which we can accurately calculate where these scarce resources will efficiency be allocated.

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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.

Side: the economy needs more help

Fix the economy first and then tackle the environment. Too many people who need jobs and places going out of business.

Side: the economy needs more help
0 points

Don't you need money to fund things like saving the environment? There, argument finished.

Side: the economy needs more help
jessald(1915) Disputed
4 points

Don't you need a livable environment in order to do things like making money? There, argument finished.

We need to balance the two.

Side: the environment first
MKIced(2482) Disputed
2 points

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).

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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.

Side: mother earth demands blood sacrifice
6 points

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.

Side: the environment first

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.

Side: the environment first
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

stop taking up space you ####### hypocrite

............................................................

Side: mother earth demands blood sacrifice
2 points

Well, that's cute.

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.

(Although it doesn't stop you....)

Side: the environment first
2 points

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.

Side: Sustainability
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

No one is stopping you,....

So please be creative, and share with us the solution to all our woes.

Until then you better stop calling everyone else wasteful and accusing them of mismanaging their resources,....it only makes you look fat.

Side: mother earth demands blood sacrifice
2 points

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.

Side: the environment first
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

The economy.

The environment.

consider yourself disputed.

Side: mother earth demands blood sacrifice
2 points

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.

Side: the environment first
wolfbite(431) Disputed
1 point

Actually, our planet is fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q3upFx4FcA

Side: the economy needs more help
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: NUKE THE BITCH
2 points

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.

Side: the environment first
2 points

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.

Side: the environment first
2 points

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
2 points

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

Side: the environment first
1 point

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.

Side: the environment first
2 points

"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. ;)

Side: the economy needs more help
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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.

Side: To each their own
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
1 point

I'm going to have to defend the bar crowd.

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
1 point

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.

Side: the environment first
Republican2(351) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: the economy needs more help
Spoonerism(830) Disputed
1 point

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.

To me, it's a no brainer.

Side: the environment first
egga(109) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: the environment first
1 point

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.

Side: Why not Fix Both
1 point

Without a planet with healthy environment, we cannot survive. We can't eat, drink or breathe money. Environment needs to be saved first, period.

Side: the environment first