Economic growth or environmental protection?

Question

If you had to choose one, which would you choose? (I know I have massively oversimplified the matter - but just assume for this instance that they are mutually exclusive).

I thought I had made it crystal clear. But it appears not.
You can't say both ok.

This is ridiculous. 10 points to the first person who can choose without pointing out the obvious (that in the real world they aren't mutually exclusive).

Answer 1

me i would choose environmental protection, the human race is at a point where what we do can really affect the environment to our detriment, if not our generation then future generations

but due to our current model of economics based on capitalism which is really driven by basic human greed, the environment takes a back seat.

Answer 2

no choice to be made,because one goes with the other,if environment is protected then surely there will be enough source to improve the economy ,and if economy is on the right track then surely there will be enough funds and ways to protect and conserve our environment ,therefore if i choose one i will be choosing the other also.the one benificial right to be given prority is the people,to educate,protect and to give and conserve their right to environmental products and their share to economic growth.

Answer 3

In this society (and world) you really need both, All of us not only want to eat but must eat to live. If we distroy the garden we can no longer eat. I my minds eye I can only see the need for both.

Answer 4

Both

Answer 5

economic growth is the result of increaseed production and consumption, minus the costs. (oversimplified I know)
To put it simply again, one such cost is environmental damage to society as a result of externalaties. if we reduce the damage cause by environmental damage, then we reduce the costs of production, which benefts the economy, hence growth and protection of the environment are not mutually exclusive.

BTW, just for fun here is an essay I wrote on the matter recently for the Environmental Society at my law school, feel free to copy and distribute/email to anyone you like:

Personal Autonomy v. Environmental Protection
By Anton Lakshin

In recent years, the regulatory and government agencies of the United States have shied away from introducing new environmental legislation, or even enforcing existing environmental laws. As one example, the Bush administration refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which would have required the U.S. to reduce its green house gas emissions by 6% bellow 1990 levels. In response to the Federal governments inaction, State governments have introduced their own environmental legislation laws that have aimed to meet or even surpass the targets set by Kyoto and existing EPA standards. No state has been more instrumental in leading this charge to new environmental accountability then the state of California, which recently passed a law that requires automakers to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in new cars by 30 percent by 2020. On January 31, 2007, MSNBC reported that Assemblyman Lloyd Levine of California plans to introduce legislation that would ban the sale of incandescent bulbs in California by 2012. If such a law were passed, it would in effect force the citizens of California to buy compact fluorescent bulbs, which cost more but use less electricity. In introducing his idea, the Assemblyman stated that the newer lighting technology is “so efficient, that consumers should be forced to use them.” While such actions by the state government are indeed environmentally progressive and have been met with great acclaim by the environmental movement, the new laws do lead to legal and moral quandaries. How much personal autonomy should the state government take away from its citizens to ensure a cleaner environment?

Americans have always valued their right to autonomy. The U.S. Constitution has long been considered to support the idea of personal independence and the right to be free of government intrusion. In the commercial world too, companies have traditionally stressed the idea of rugged individualism and the right of the customer to have choices. Americans are accustomed, and indeed demand the right to choose. Want an Ipod? We have them in 6 colors! Want an ice cream? We have 2,000 flavors! In light of our societies demand for choice, laws that seek to limit personal freedom will always be at odds with the belief in personal autonomy. Sometimes however, limits on personal freedom are needed, even if it comes into conflict with the right of choice. As a society we have agreed to require drivers to be licensed in order to ensure the safety of everyone on the road. This requirement restricts an individual right, but we recognize that the infringement on that individuals right is less important then the safety of everyone else. Economic conservatives that place high value on personal freedom argue that the free market should be allowed to remedy social problems and that the capitalist system will ultimately lead to the best social outcome. However in arguing this, they fail to account for what economists call market failures, which is the failure of the market economy to produce efficient results due to insufficient incentives. Environmental laws such as the one proposed by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine are meant to remedy such market failures by in effect forcing people to make the efficient choice. Should this be allowed? Many conservatives would argue that even if the market is not efficient, it is still morally wrong to limit people’s freedom and that such restrictions on freedom go against the tenants of the Constitution. On the other hand, is it moral to neglect the environment and pollute it at the cost to future, yet unborn generations? The BBC reports that the U.S. emits more CO2, absolutely and per head, than any other country, accounting for 36.1% of the worlds CO2 emissions in 2005. Does the U.S. have a moral responsibility to its citizens and to the other nations of the world to reduce it’s emissions in light of these statistics? What responsibility do we as individuals have in reducing our own energy consumption? The ideas of personal liberty and personal choice would seem to point to the view that each individual should be free to make the decision of personal accountability and responsibility for him or her self. On the other hand, it is not unheard of for us as a society to sometimes agree to limit personal freedom by law, to ensure that the right choice is made. Environmental law should be in this later category. If the ban on the sale of incandescent bulbs were to become law for example, it would surely lead to complaints from consumers. Some would argue that the newer technologies don’t provide the same sort of lighting effect that traditional light bulbs have provided us for the last 125 years. Others will argue that they don’t want to pay the higher costs for the new, more efficient lighting technology. But these and other arguments should not be heeded. If such complaints were to surface, the market economy would meet these complaints with new innovation, eventually addressing problems such as light effects. The increased costs of the newer bulbs would be offset with reduced electricity bills to consumers due to the efficiency of the new technology, and increased demand for the more efficient bulbs would drive the prices down further. But most importantly, the reduction in energy consumption will provide a benefit to everyone in the form of cleaner air and reduced CO2 emissions. Protecting the environment is something that makes both economic and social sense. The limit on personal freedom of choice in the market in return for such benefits is well worth it. If we as Americans want the rest of the world to know that we are leaders, that we care for future generations and for the wellbeing of the environment, then environmental laws such as the one proposing to ban incandescent bulbs should be encouraged and enforced.