[Debate] Enviroment a priority or not?

[Murasame]

Alright so I have an upcoming debate concerning this topic soon at school. Is it priority enough considering the economy and other factors? Does business take priority over environment? I picked the side that supports the enviroment.. well anyways I'm interested in what you guys have to say whether you support it or oppose it so please feel free to give your input on this topic. Any links supporting your argument would be nice Lol

 

[gutSy Sage]

there is always room for helping the environment

 

[Rohan]

Environment is more important because if it is destroyed there would be no economy or business in my opinion.

 

[-Punk-]

Environment should be the priority , but Business will always prevail , that's how most people see it .

 

[Bindu45]

environment should be priority. if we don't take care of the environment there will be no planet for us or the businesses

 

[UltraPain]

Business is completely driven by the sale and control of resources. If there's no environment then there will be no resources left to use.

 

[-PK-]

I'll sum it up with this quote .
"Only when the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money"

 

[Scooby Doo]

Environment in general, but in some cases it's more complex than that, for example if business creates jobs and boosts a region's economy.

 

[Wabbit]

Environment. You don’t shit in your house and live with it. A clean environment is necessary for our existence.

 

[~Sky~]

Economics reasons that monetary success is a product of competition, and that making profit from competition requires efficiency. Efficiency is usually only concerned with labor and capital, but there's more to it than that.

Countries such as Japan, Germany, and Scandinavian countries produce their products with about half the energy input of American industry. Denmark’s economy grew by 45% from 1990 to 2007 and its CO2 emissions were reduced by more than 13% in that time period. So economic growth doesn't conflict with caring for the environment.

Roughly, energy is 1/10th of the cost of production, so these countries have about a 5% advantage of efficiency for the U.S. It's a pretty large advantage, but this also includes other natural resources. Using natural resources more efficiently, gives one a larger stock of natural resources, and as a result increases competition, which in turn increases monetary gain.

^ Could use some of that I guess, I did something like this last year.

 

[BlacLord™]

This is so derpy...

Environment. If we don't take care of that, there won't be an economy because there won't be the human race. Plus, the economy's a lot easier to fix than the environment. I bet you that any global monetary problems will pass before the global environmental woes. And even then, it'll fix itself, the environment won't.

 

[Murasame]

Economics reasons that monetary success is a product of competition, and that making profit from competition requires efficiency. Efficiency is usually only concerned with labor and capital, but there's more to it than that.

Countries such as Japan, Germany, and Scandinavian countries produce their products with about half the energy input of American industry. Denmark’s economy grew by 45% from 1990 to 2007 and its CO2 emissions were reduced by more than 13% in that time period. So economic growth doesn't conflict with caring for the environment.

Roughly, energy is 1/10th of the cost of production, so these countries have about a 5% advantage of efficiency for the U.S. It's a pretty large advantage, but this also includes other natural resources. Using natural resources more efficiently, gives one a larger stock of natural resources, and as a result increases competition, which in turn increases monetary gain.

^ Could use some of that I guess, I did something like this last year.

Oh damn Sky I should've posted this thread way more earlier to use this... this would've demolished my opponent completely lol