Wouldn't investing in switching over to a sustainible, renewable, enviromentally friendly civilization that doesn't destroy anything of value make everyone who was involved more money from a single project then any other project in human history?
2006-09-07 04:56:59 · 4 answers · asked by Stan S 1 in Business & Finance ➔ Investing
it's like you guys are sayying we had better stick to whale oil because digging in the ground will be more expensive so no one will want to do it and they wouldn't make money anyway. Some examples I can think of off the top of my head is they have machines that pull carbon out of the air and turn it into a solid making a profit by selling the solib carbon. Remember how much money was made creating the electrical grid, hydrocarbon infastructure and telecommunications infastructure, it can be done all over again by building a hydrogen fuel infastructure and enviromentally safe renewable energy infastructure.
A department of enviromental restoration would of course be a government agency and could be focased on the areas with the most destuction and damage and restore them to a undevolped and polution free state freeing up the enviromental protection agency to prevent damage instead of being responsible for both preventing it and cleaning it up.
2006-09-07 05:19:52 · update #1
Where's the return going to come from? No one is currently willing to pay (much) extra for environmentally friendly products. The reason ethanol hasn't taken off is that it's no cheaper than gasoline.
2006-09-07 05:00:00 · answer #1 · answered by Oh Boy! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The people who currently profit from polluting own governments. Their profit margins are grotesquely huge. So we'd have to "take back" government for anything to happen.
I, for one, would like to see the fines for polluting be so painful that it becomes cheaper not to pollute (but those pulling in the $$$$$$$$$ won't let this happen).
Basically, I agree with you. (Not so sure about your example, but the general concept. It's probably more expensive to extract, than what you'd get from selling, for instance.)
The question is, where does the research and implementation money come from? If it's government-funded, then government would have to cough up. (Most people would support this, BTW, but then government doesn't serve the citizenry.)
The fines I mentioned might be one way.
I don't know that it would make "more money ... than any other project in human history" as that's what, for example, oil companies now get, but, if we had a government that served the people, and a rational and humane economy, it could be sufficiently profitable for those who aren't insanely greedy.
And would be better in every other way for everyone on the planet.
2006-09-07 13:01:43 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You would think so -- but Reagan gutted any environmental programs when he was president & we haven't quite recovered.
Bush appointed Christie Todd Whitman to head the EPA -- but she resigned because anything she tried to do to improve things was overturned by the White House.
We need to start at the top.
2006-09-07 13:55:08 · answer #3 · answered by Ranto 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Environmental remediation is big business. But, environmentally destructive businesses make more money.
2006-09-07 12:04:06 · answer #4 · answered by jerry f 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋