Response to prompt 5: anti-environmentalism.


​The belief of many that environmentalism is anti-capitalism and anti-human is not accurate. In fact, in many instances environmentalist are concerned about the impact of environmental issues on humans and their wellbeing. A more environmentally conscience government would not lead to an economic downturn. I believe it would have the opposite effect, especially in the long term. There is a rapidly expanding market for sustainable development and clean energy. Implementing and designing new green technologies would create many new jobs and stimulate the economy.

​Some have suggested raising fossil fuel prices to cause Americans to become more reliant on renewable energy. I believe this would be a good idea. Primarily, it would mean removing costly government subsidies from fossil fuels like gas and coal. These subsidies could then be applied to renewable energies like solar panels. One of the main arguments against solar energy is the cost of the panels. Subsidizing solar energy would make the panels more affordable. Consumers would also become more aware of the real cost of gas; when the extra five or six dollars a gallon of gas is no longer being externalized onto Uncle Sam, consumers will be much more likely to search for more affordable means of transportation (this could be as simple as carpooling!).

​I don’t believe the world can run on “wind power and wishes”, but I think wind, combined with solar, geothermal, tidal, and other forms of renewable energy will be able to keep the gears turning. Sweden is able to harness energy from trash (maybe there is something to those wishes…), I think this shows clearly solutions exist; they just need to be found and implemented.


One response »

  1. I agree, a switch from an environmentally irresponsible economy to one with a greater focus on sustainability would create as many jobs as it would lose. However, this is not an argument that needs to be made. Our nonrenewable resources may extend past the next, 10, 50, even 500 years (depending on technological innovation and consumption rates), but I doubt that anyone could reasonably argue (at current consumption levels) that these resources will last for thousands of years. If we plan on surviving for more than a few hundred years, developing a more sustainable way of life is simply not optional, it’s mandatory. If and tree falls in the woods, and there is no human life on the planet, is economics still relevant?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s