The question that the title of this blog asks is one that has been unanswered since environmental law and regulation first came to popularity. It has been one of the biggest arguments that has hindered much progress for the environment to be made in the United States. We will be taking a look at the two biggest aspects that can relate how these two topics can alter each other. We will be looking at the short-term effects, and the long-term effects, for when environmental progress is being made alongside the economy. Since this topic would be too huge to cover via every nation across the globe, we will just focus on the relationships in the United States.
The Short-Term Effects
Stricter pollution regulations are said to hurt the profitability of companies, and decrease the speed at which they are able to expand their operations while renewable energy is, at the moment, more costly to produce and will need continued government support to become as viable as its more polluting alternatives. This brings up the basic issue I presented in my first blog, going into the idea of renewable resources being less desirable with a higher cost than non-renewable resources. One example of this comes from what is seen in corporate waste disposal. Whether there are wastes that are visibly spread on the surface of the Earth, or those spread through the Earth’s atmosphere, the wastes are seen as more affordable and efficient for corporations to make. However, these wastes result in excessive damage to the Earth’s environment, and has also led to a far quicker depletion in the Earth’s natural resources. This causes consumers and corporations alike, to disapprove using methods that would be more friendly to the status of the environment.
The problem with this perception is that the economy and environment are not in opposition with one another. In fact, environmental issues are not separate from any issue faced by humans, but is rather a component of them all. People cannot combat poverty, disease, or suffering without a stable climate and a healthy environment to live in, and you cannot improve a struggling economy either. Cleaning up the environment has also been known to be a facet in opening immediate jobs. One of the biggest examples of this came from public works programs instilled by former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt to help combat the Great Depression. This included of works such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a work relief program that gave millions of young men employment on environmental projects during that time.
The Long-Term Effects
A healthy environment is a prerequisite for a healthy economy, when looking at the two topics from the long-term effects of each. The economy relies on the planet’s ability to provide resources and the necessities of life, if the pollution we produce is reducing its ability to do that it becomes catastrophic for the economy. In fact, climate change has the potential to send us into one of the biggest global recessions ever.
Climate change presents a growing, long-term economic burden for the United States. The NRTEE is an independent agency created by the federal government of Canada in 1988, with the mandate to show leadership in the new way we must think of the relationship between the environment and the economy and the new way we must act. According to their report last fall, climate change will start costing Canada in the billions by 2020 but that number could balloon up to as much as $43 billion a year by 2050. The economic burdens climate change creates come from a disruption to Canada’s timber industry arising from changing environmental conditions, and is a wake up sign for all of what the United States has been ignoring that has led to similar catastrophe in their nation.
One last aspect that is completely missed, is how when natural resources are depleted quickly, that will directly hurt economic efficiency. One will not be able to succeed as a corporation, if it cannot withhold the natural resources in which it was founded upon. As science has proven, almost all of Earth’s natural and artificial resources will trace back to natural resources. Thus the long-term effect of preserving the environment, would be preserving those resources.
I think it is an interesting point to note that climate change will cost money in the long run. However, just to play devil’s advocate, I would like to point out that, although addressing climate change retroactively will cost a significant amount of money, addressing it in its current state will also have significant costs. Aside from that, some I know some people tend to argue that global warming will only result in 3.5 degrees Celsius increase at most by 2100, giving people on the coast ample time to simply move to safer ground. Although I do not agree with this viewpoint on a humanitarian perspective, I think it is important to note.
I absolutely agree with your last point that natural resources are being depleted. At this point it seems almost inevitable that we, as a country, are pushing full throttle on the edge of a cliff where, when oil prices skyrocket due to scarcity, the US economy will most likely take an incredible hit if it were not to adapt earlier. I know during recent years, the US become the world’s number one producer of crude oil and leads in natural gas, so this issue seems critical to the long-term survival of the country. Overall, very thorough analysis of the real economic costs of climate change as a whole!