is penalties the best way to protect the environment?
Imposing heavy penalties on those who pollute or destroy the environment is one way to preserve our environment. But is it the only way, or is it the best way?
what advantages do penalties have, and what drawbacks?
in what country should we apply what kind of approach?
yes, of course
Side Score: 9
|
 |
no what are you talking about!
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, not of course. However if people continue to mindlessly pollute their planet, they'll all turn round sooner or later when the world dies and say, " Oh but we didn't know, we ween't warned of what would happen..." All people care about is the economy. Saying that it's too expensive to take too drastic action, though they don't realise that the economy will mean nothing in a world with over population, natural resources running out, polluted rising sea levels, e.t.c. I think harsher penalties need to be enforced to help protect the environment. Future generations will thank us :P Side: yes, of course
1
point
Yes. The penalties are not their to simply penalize people. They are set as rules so that people won't commit the injustice in the first place due to the possibility of the penalty. If there was no penalty for doing things that are seen as unjust, then a lot more people would being doing these unjust things. Side: yes, of course
|
The best way to protect the environment is to allow for science and technology to progress. Green endeavors are highly supported by the masses and many would rather pay for green products than non-green products. ATM, because of governmental regulations and subsidies, there is no truly green effort from the corporate class, but the few green-efforts that they can afford do turn a profit because the consumers endorse those policies. Government involvement is basically a barrier for creativity and innovation. It's too expensive to experiment with new ideals, so many find it better to just stick with what they can do. A non-environmental example would be seat-belt requirements in cars that are manufactured in the United States. It would cost a lot of money to design and test a safety product, and since it is illegal to not have seat-belts, the risk of using something alternative is too great for businesses to experiment on. So they resort to the primitive safety-belts because if the government doesn't approve their design, they would have wasted a lot of money for nothing. This is seen with green technology and regulations. Green technology is LIMITED by government regulation, not approved. and if outdated, ineffective technology is subsidized, many businesses would rather get payed to use the green technology that doesn't work than spend money to come up with better ideas. Side: no what are you talking about!
|
