Would you support environmentally beneficial reforms and laws that didn't hurt the economy?

Question

I know these types of laws are possible, arguing that either way isn't my question. What I'm asking is would you be impressed enough by politicians who actually got them passed into law to give them more political support. Would this improve their political standing because a vast majoriety of the american people really care about the enviroment and want to see any and all ways that don't hurt the economy actually implemented? Does passing those kinds of laws and reforms before trying to get laws passed that would help the enviroment but have a negative economic impact(however small) just make good sense? Would a far reaching green legislation reform movement help win back voters from the green party and maybe even result in it's absorbtion into the democratic party giving them a larger base?

Obviously you didn't read what I said. I said enviromental reforms and laws that DON'T hurt the economy. And I said reforms and laws that help the enviroment and hurt the economy even a little bit are in a diffrent catagorey.

Answer 1

What's the timeframe that you're looking at. Environmentally beneficial reforms that hurt the economy in the short term may be better for the economy in the long term in terms of creating sustainability, lessening greenhouse gases, etc.

As for the rest of it, it sounds like a homework question that's densely written and a little difficult to follow. In general, people don't want things that they think will hurt them, but sometimes the law or regulation that might hurt them would possibly cause a greater hurt to overall society if not enacted.

As for your supposition that this might cause more voters to vote democrat, I think you put far too much weight on legislation for how people vote. It would be nice if voting was decided on actual issues, but I have my doubts; that's a discussion for another time.

Answer 2

The question is mostly invalid. Although it is possible to create a law that helps the environment and hurts the economy, almost all changes that help the environment are, in the long term, good for the economy. If we don't do something now our current economy will be utterly destroyed, possibly in our lifetimes. If the Democrats themselves actually decide to support good environmental laws (they occasionally support tepid ones), I would absolutely support those laws. I would not, however, support the Democrats as a party. Their long term support for misguided wars, trade policies that spread hunger and blight, etc, coupled with their strong anti-democratic party policies mean that they cannot support the 10 key values of the Greens.

Answer 3

I would like the government to pass laws the soon require we use less oil. For example, I would like to see them sharply raise gas mileage requirements even thought that would damage our economy because this would protect the envioronment and protect us from Arab oil depend. Also, they could require we only use flourescent lights and many other things for the same reasons for national security and to protect the environment. However, global warming is totally unproven so things like that would not want as basis for laws.

Answer 4

It woudl make sence from an economic and political point of view to have environmentally friendly laws. We depend too heavily on foreign fuels. We need to stop this from an economic, political and security point of view. We spend far too much money importing oil. We must bend to political concerns to make certain that the flow of oil does not stop. This also hurts our national security, since we must tread lightly with our oil trading partners since we need them more than they need us.

Answer 5

Whenever the government gets into mandates, someone will pay dearly. And that someone will be YOU.