is it economically viable to preserve the environment?

Question

if its yes..how?

Answer 1

Yes, companies and cities have started working towards sustainable economies while remaining environmentally friendly. If you would like some proof I would read Eco-Economy by Lester R. Brown. It is a few years old but will really help you understand the ins and outs of this issue.

Answer 2

At this time, it is not economically viable and probably not wise to attempt to preserve the environment.
Please consider the meaning of the term PRESERVE.
If you were to have asked about the viability of CONSERVING the environment, the answer would be quite different.
Man is part of nature. We have the unique ability to think about the consequences of our actions. We cannot PRESERVE the environment because that would necessitate never doing anything. That would end in the death of all of us.
It is WRONG to waste what we have so we must CONSERVE. Careful use of resources and assets with a view to improving our environment is the wise action.
Climate change is both dynamic and constant. Even a quick glance at the reality of the history of climate will verify that fact.
Our misuse of fossil fuels adds to global warming but if we were to never use another gram of fossil fuel, global warming would likely continue. The effect on reducing global warming would likely be less than 10%.
You must ask, why is the temperature rising on Mars? Is the cause an increase in solar energy from the sun? What does the burning of fossil fuels have to do with that?
We do not have the information needed to fully resolve all the questions regarding these issues but what you can be sure of is the fact that Al Gore's movie is WRONG; and he has set himself up to PROFIT monetarily from any public panic he can create.

Answer 3

It depends upon how you mean "economically viable." If you want to know if we can maintain the current standard of living or level of production while improving the environment, of course we can't. If protecting the environment were currently cheaper than not, there wouldn't be this argument.

However, if you are asking if preserving the environment will be so expensive that production will stop, then no. To suggest that the world will end if we protect the environment is as extreme as saying that everyone will die if we don't.

Answer 4

Of course it's economically viable. Maybe not in the short term, we've done way to much damage to this little planet we call home. But if everyone would do SOMETHING, by the time our great-grandchildren have children we could at least see an end to this nightmare of global warming and pollution. Most people don't look at the long term and see good. They look at the here and now and see dollars floating away. If the government would put some of our war dollars into renewable energy source studies, we could all see a brighter future sooner rather than later. K, sorry about that....I was rambling.

Answer 5

Of course it's viable, in the long run at least. However, it is practically impossible to preserve the enviroment... all we puny humans can do is to lessen the rate at which our world is dying. According to some National Geographic article, global warming is not just because of us humans, our cars, the livestock etc. It also happens in planets without life (I think Mars has increased global warming as well.)
Think of preserving the enviroment as a long-term investment. Economically speaking, if we lengthen the Earth's lifespan, we would be lengthening the lifespan of the species Homo Sapien as well. If there is an extra twenty or so generations of hunmans able to survive due to our preservation efforts, you can be sure that their money earned would be more than the money used for preserving the enviroment.
Also, from another angle, if we preserve the enviroment, eg less deforestation, save water, slow down burning of fuels, we are in fact giving nature time to recharge itself, much like rotating of crop land to let it recharge itself. Thus, if we do that, we are actually making savings for the future generation.
Now, the question is how. Hopefully, with advancements in technology, we can create more enrivoment-oriented products, but for now the most pressing problem is public awareness. The problem must be stopped at the source- us humans, with our extravagant eating habits, wastage of water and fuel, treating this planet like we own it. First, the public must cooperate to help save the Earth from the abuse we are piling on her. Secondly, eco-friendly products such as alternative energy sources must be used (eg solar and hydroelectricity) After that, waste management, wildlife conservation, banning of deforestation, promoting vegetables over meat (one ton of beef uses about 16 tons of grain...somewhere along that line) must all be inroduced, and actively taken up by the public, to have an impact on our enviroment.
It's just like life. Whatever happens, we will die in the end, but it's what we do to prolong our lives that are important.

Answer 6

It may not be at the moment, but we will have to change our priorities. It is normally cheaper in the short term to do nothing, but it will become very expensive to put it right later.

Answer 7

You're asking the wrong questions, just follow the money.... just follow the money!