The Impact Of Economics On The Environment

The environment is essential to the organisms living within it, that is beneficial by providing food and shelter. Its quality began to be degrade as soon as the industrial revolution began around 1700s. This threatened the existence of many plant and animal species but humans were viewing this as an opportunity to end poverty and other related problems. This was also another way to aid with economic growth. Economic growth is the increased production of goods over a period of time produced per head of the population. Environmental degradation is a major problem in developing countries because the damage done to the environment is less. Developing countries are those which have poor agricultural background and are seeking to become more economically and socially advanced, they can be characterized by low GDP, lack of industries and enterprises, dependent on agriculture and more. This degradation contributes to factors like global warming and climate change. It is evident that economic growth does not benefit the environment but the people only, so the environment is indeed compromised. With every seconds, a country that is developing destroys a piece of vegetation in order to build more facilities that will elevate the country.

Instead of focusing on the individual, “ecological economics invites us to picture ourselves not as isolated individuals but as housemates” (McFague 132). This model has two goals striving for sustainability and distributive justice which will allow for the earth’s resources to be sustained for future generations. McFague feels that the ecological economic system will provide an efficient system that will suit and support the needs of the world.

From the dawn of modernization, our environment's problems have been a pivotal issue which seems to be a natural need for humankind that penetrates almost to every facet of people's life from all walks of life. Hitherto, preferable means of a possible way to preserve our world from catastrophic events have been discussed by a plethora of dignitaries. A question that might arise here is, whether the best way for protecting the environment is funding the research for developing new energy sources, or preserving natural locations, or enact laws. A consensus has yet to be reached; however, I am personally on the belief that the former carries more weight. Two prominent reasons that can support the contention would be elaborated in the following

Economic analysis that weighs all costs and benefits of a particular model must include environmental considerations. That is to say, the potential for short-term economic losses caused by conservation in the present, should be measured against the dividends that conservation will pay in the future (Nordhaus, 2007). If the earth is truly our most valuable commodity, then analysis under these conditions should recognize that if a “dollar value” were placed on environmental sustainability, more often than not it would outweigh any initial monetary loss resultant of the implementation of more sustainable practices.

The emergence of the main environmental conservation mechanisms emanates from the fact that both attitudes highlight some key advantages and disadvantages. The idea in this context is to ensure the adoption of the mechanisms that hold the most advantages for the conservation of the earth and the environment. For instance, the belief that we should utilize the earth in ways that maximize its potential to provide for and protect all plants and creatures is holistic (Ishiyama 126). This attitude should play a huge role in governing the activities that have the potential of affecting the environment in a negative manner. The efforts of the government to satisfy capitalist interests should undergo this stern test especially in matters such as fracking and the exploitation of uncharted territories. The adoption of this holistic approach should lead to the perception and treatment of the earth in a respectful as opposed to an exploitative

Wilson asserts, “No one should look to GNPs and corporate annual reports for a competent projection of the world’s long-term economic future.” In other words, the Gross National Product (GNP) and corporations will not accurately depict the long-term economic future, due to the lack of environmental factors that if implemented would surely fluctuate the projections. Furthermore, the more reliable sources are from research reports from the natural-resource specialists and ecological economists that provide an accurate representation of the financial and environmental future. In addition, the environmental experts factor in the imperil that is posed to the environment while expanding the economy. Thus, the idealistic balance between the environment and economy will not be found in the GNP reports, but in the ecological economist reports that can veritably attest to both sides of the political spectrum. On a national scale, converting to renewable energy is not prioritized, due to the fact the fossil fuel industry has an abundant of sizable investments. So, reasonably an annual national report would be in favor of the large corporations, such as the fossil fuel industry. As a result, the projections for the economic-future with fossil fuel as our main energy source is one-sided and

Economics is the study of how individuals and societies choose to use the scarce resources that nature and previous generations have provided.

The actions of people in their everyday lives has an impact on the environment in one way or another. Either by deciding to turn on one switch or by utilizing slightly hotter water to shower than usual, you're utilizing resources that are extracted from the environment. How David Orr said it "All education is environmental education." What he meant was that no matter what we study, it ties into our environment and how we live. By studying microeconomics you study whether you're making a profit by analyzing which is greater, the social benefit or social cost. If a company is producing pollution that is contaminating the drinking water, it doesn't matter if you're making a profit, the social cost is greater than the marginal private benefit for the government would impose taxes to limit on how much you're producing. All this goes to show that it doesn't matter if you're studying areas that doesn't even have to do with the environment such as economics, it still ties into our surroundings which is why one needs to include environmental sustainability. Another evidence to why environmental sustainability should be included into the college curriculum is because "knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world" (Orr). What this means is that by being educated

To adapt to the pressing need to be sustainable in the 21st century, the U.S government tries to find a way to balance between the environmental impact and the economy. Their philosophy worldview are neo-classical economic and anthropocentric; that why they failed to adapt to the environmental issues shows by the serious threats of the anthropocentric such as climate change, deforestation, energy shortages and pollution. In the long term as they continue to grow unsustainably, the waste emissions will highly increase and the nonrenewable energy source will soonly run out which will lead to the ecosystem continuing to dramatically change. In neoclassical economics, they usually use the cost-benefit analysis as a method to estimate the economic benefit of an action. They compare the estimate sum of the benefits to the total of estimate cost

Our economy is directly dependent to the environment in regards of both production and consumption. We used resources from our environment, some of which are renewable while others are not. For example, we are dependent on oil extraction because of the vast market which uses oil in so many fields. However, petroleum is a non-renewable resource, so once it is used up, no more will be available. For instance, oil extraction is very important for Texas. Platforms in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico are specifically designed for its extraction from the bottom of the ocean, and when driving through Texas, many oil pumps can be seen in the middle of ranches and farm fields. Many jobs depend on the oil market, making Texas very dependent on its availability. Consequently, it can be stated that the economy depends on our environment, and without our environment no economy is possible. The problem that comes from this dependency on our environment is that whatever energy we use to sustain our activities, is returned to the environment as waste, damaging it.

In what ways did groups of natives impact/change the environment they lived in? How did the environment impact/change the lives of natives? Focus your answer on the tribes of the Southwest, Great Plains, Northeast, South and Northwest (p. 5-10).

Mankiw provides an economists opinion that “a clean environment can be viewed as simply another good,” yet environmentalist argue that there should not be a price tag on human rights to a clean, healthy environment. Theoretically, a corrective tax will yield the same price and quantity of pollution as the issuing of pollution permits, but morally speaking, “that way of life, and the attitudes that support it, are what we should discourage, even stigmatize.” As opposed to companies buying their right to pollute, individuals and companies will often justify their carbon footprint,

In the past, the economic school of thought regarded the resources as unlimited and focused on more production under the light of the unlimited growth assumption. Every economic action was suggested to only consider about making more profit. While the economy and the human population are growing; more natural resources are used and more pollution is observed. Human become to deal with the results of its production such as environmental problems and resource scarcity. A debate has emerged in economics and the mainstream economics is brought into question since its unlimited growth assumption is collapsed. Ecological economists argue the neoclassical welfare economics for ignoring the environmental and ethic values by only focusing on the cost-benefit analysis. It also claims that the neoclassical economics fails to calculate the value of the environmental capital and the loss of the economic activities on the environment. This paper is going to explain the problems with the neoclassical welfare economics and the alternatives offered by the ecological economics in terms of economic growth and environment.

Since 1940, the world population has nearly tripled. With this nearly exponential growth in population came a major growth in economic and financial activity that is increasingly more global and complex (Ayres et al., 2013). To compensate for this growth in population and economic and financial activity, the use of natural resources has risen at a similar rate. Although continuous economic growth is the primary goal of an economy, the finite amount of resources constrained by the capabilities of the ecosphere makes continuous exponential economic and population growth impossible. Currently, resources are being extracted and used at an unsustainable rate. This overuse of resources has led to problems such as deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and the depletion of the richest reserves of nonrenewable energy resources (Brown et al., 2014). This problem, if left undiscussed by global economic and environmental policymakers, will lead to immense consequences for current and future generations. The key issue hindering this discussion is the debate on the best strategy to retain a viable level of economic growth while managing environmental sustainability. In other words, what development can be executed to solve the current economic and environmental problems without threatening the capabilities of future generations? Although the specifics of this question are disputed, the general consensus is that in order to maintain sustainable economic growth and a supportive environment,

Environmental issues have been a cause of a lot of debate in the recent past. Governments and nongovernmental organizations have been in constant consultations on how to help protect the environment. Apparently, as a result of man’s many actions, the natural environment is getting torn apart so quickly that the coming generations will not enjoy this kind of environment, unless a