Environmental Science – P5-IP Many people argue that environmental laws are too costly and cannot be always justified by the benefits they bring to the society. I cannot agree with this position I firmly believe that preserving the Planet is one of humanitys main tasks. We need to save as much as possible for the future generations and do our best in protecting the environment. In order to evaluate the costs of the environmental laws, it can be useful to apply the cost-benefit analysis. It is known that environment is one of the main factors that effect the quality of human life. Living in polluted areas means numerous health problems, including fertility, various forms of cancer, shorter life expectancy. Many examples of poor countries that do not have any environmental laws or regulations prove that treating environment-related diseases is more costly than investing in clean environment in the first place. China is a good example of how intensive industrialization and absence of environmental laws can cause horrific problems for the society. United States has seen some good examples of how environmental laws have helped. Many L.A. residents know that in the past breathing the air in L.A.
could be compared to smoking as much as two packs of cigarettes a day. That is why the smog prevention laws got so much public approval. No one would even think of these laws being too expensive or consider outlawing them. People cannot afford to abuse the planet forever and they should not think that they can make a profit on a planet. Each generation must realize that its activities will cost too much for their future generations. President Bush was against signing the Kyoto protocol, which would reduce greenhouse gases. The logic behind this refusal has been that the American economy cannot afford it.
The Term Paper on Portable Concrete Mixer Plant Cost
Concrete batch plants are important for construction projects and every builder considers investing in this plant at one or the other point of time. Concrete plants, also known as portable concrete batch plant, high production Concrete batching are largely employed at construction site by the builders to mix the cement and to ease the construction process. Most of the small time or midsized ...
There are many people that just do not believe this statement. It is more a matter of the cost of not doing anything about the green house effect, which will outweigh the cost of implementing some environmental regulations by many times. The opponents of implementation of environmental laws argue that there are thousands of people who loose jobs over these laws. We often hear examples of logging towns, mining towns, etc. There is also much talk about the increased corn prices, which is caused by the increased demand for corn that is being used to produce alternative fuels. There are examples of the livestock farmers who are going out of business because they cannot afford to buy corn now.
There is also a situation in Mexico, where corn is one of the major elements of many peoples diets and they literally cannot afford to buy corn powder to make their tortillas. So, on one hand, one could make the argument that certain environmental regulations increase the cost of doing business because paying for cleaner environment may mean not paying increased wages or hiring new workforce. On the other hand, however, cleaner environment means healthier employees. Saving money on preserving our environment today means paying our childrens medical bills in the future. The only side that calls environment expenses waste is big business, which does not want to cut their profits. This is one of the reasons why developed countries place their steel industry in less developed, less environmentally protected countries. More and more of these polluters are going abroad.
This does not solve the problem. As it was proved by Chernobyl accident: an environmental disaster anywhere, is an environmental disaster everywhere..
