To what extent should economic planning be influenced by the need for environmental conservation?
Almost every day the media report new evidence, criticism or speculation surrounding the issue of climate change. Both governmental and non-governmental organisations endeavour to encourage citizens all over the world to reduce their household emissions, but in the past ten years there has been a movement to put pressure on governments specifically to integrate environmental issues into both new and existing policies. In the past year there has been far more focus on economic planning due to the credit crunch and subsequent global recession, but many pressure groups are still fighting to suggest that environmental issues should be a big part of these policies too. It is argued that without the environment in its current state, economic prosperity is not possible as the environment is such an intrinsic part of every economy, from farming to facilitating transport. Therefore, it is in the interests of every government to protect the environment, starting by reducing CO2 emissions, but also protecting it from chemical and physical destruction.
In the scientific community, it is now widely accepted that human activity over the last century has contributed to an increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere leading to a rise in temperatures. Almost everything we consume has either a direct or indirect greenhouse gas emission. For example, a car has a direct emission, as it produces greenhouse gasses when it is used. On the other hand, a child’s toy does not produce any emissions during use, but during manufacture CO2 would have been produced in assembling, shipping and selling the toy. Many people are aware of their direct CO2 emissions, but not of their indirect emissions in almost everything they purchase and use. It is estimated that almost 60% of consumer CO2 emissions in the USA are a result of indirect emissions. It is therefore imperative that consumers are educated to understand that certain products are more environmentally friendly due to their production, not just utilization. Education is needed to tell consumers about the benefits, for example, of purchasing locally grown produce. Governments could aid this by introducing legislation for labelling, making the carbon footprint of an individual good more obvious to the consumer.
Many goods are produced in third world countries due to reduced labour costs. There is currently a lot of pressure on developed nations to help third world countries to develop their economies and infrastructure to benefit both their own people and the global economy. However, the majority of third world countries are under extreme economic pressure due to loans from the past which are still being paid off, and decreased economic activity caused by the AIDS epidemic. There is a huge temptation for these countries to opt for the cheapest methods of modernisation. This often involves coal power stations, which are inefficient and incredibly environmentally unfriendly. More efficient and renewable technology is expensive in the short term (although in the long term the efficiency allows much lower running costs). It is the responsibility of developed nations such as the USA and UK to help developing nations to invest in efficient technology which will allow for sustainable economic growth.
Over the past century the global population has increased exponentially as a result of advances in medical science and periods of economic prosperity. There are finite resources available on Earth, enough to support a finite amount of people. Many scientists now argue that the world is at risk of a phenomenon known as overpopulation. Increasing pressure is being put on food production, land use and clean water availability. In equatorial climates especially, clean water is scarce. Although sea water can be desalinated in plants, this is unsustainable and very expensive. Therefore this is not an option for developing nations with a very small budget. Another issue is meat production. Industrialisation in China and India raise the GDP per capita of the citizens. Therefore, they are able to increase demand for meat products. Meat production
38
Foundation Essay
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157