English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-17 19:23:18 · 2 answers · asked by the301sidecar 1 in Environment

2 answers

I suspect to carry the populace with them a government has to tread very carefully as clearly draconian measures would damage the economy greatly. This might lead to civil unrest, significant poverty and less money available for health care with arguably more loss of life than global warming. That is why to talk about us all stopping using our cars or closing all fossil fuelled power stations in an effort to make a large quick difference is silly.

Rearranging our priorities to concentrate on energy efficiency can sometimes save money, can be revenue neutral and can cost money depending on specific circumstances. Reducing CO2 emissions by measures other than efficiency savings can cost large amounts of money, require new technology and projects with long lead times but we need to proceed with these as fast as we can afford, and yes at some damage to the economy, at least in the short and medium term.

2007-01-17 20:03:31 · answer #1 · answered by Robert A 5 · 0 0

I think there is a big relation between the environment and the economy and no one can deny that..Sometimes the wrong use of the resources to grow up with the economy hurts the environment,but we should make a balance couse the environment isn't just for us but also to the other generations..Also each country has establishments to control the use of the environment resources and i think they are doing well.

2007-01-18 03:39:30 · answer #2 · answered by Eman H 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers