Conservation goals must be weighed against economic costs.?

Question

True/False

Answer 1

Yes. You need to take a full accounting of costs, though, including the costs of NOT meeting conservation goals, which can often amount to millions of dollars due to illness--direct cost for medical treatment plus lost work time plus lost taxes.

Answer 2

Interesting. I find it difficult to consider the facts when so many political factions post info on their websites. A close friend is a chemical engineer and has done a great deal of reading on the subject and believes there is anything but consensus. His take is that it is way more complicated than the scientific community knows. Isn't it amazing how some people call it a fact? I don't know of anything scientific that was not a fact one day and fiction the next. It's consistent in science. I believe we should act in a responsible manner to keep our planet clean because it's the right thing to do. No one is for pollution, and I think many people have become more aware of chemicals, etc that are simply harmful. Al Gore does not know more than any scientist, and he is making money from it. If he were a Republican, every liberal on here would blast him as a profiteer, so that is a reason it be skeptical. We'll see. The most important issue is oil dependency. We are enriching our enemy, and we need to become self sufficient.

Answer 3

Absolutely, it's a fact of life. They should never be mutually exclusive but rather work together to ensure an optimum settlement between the two.

Answer 4

I don't know about "must",but they are...