http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14649058
"Can liberalised energy markets cut carbon emissions? Britain is starting to doubt it." Many are beginning to question whether an unregulated energy market can lead to a reduction in carbon emissions. Will market forces lead to an eco-friendly future? Think about the following questions as you respond to the article above.
- Should the government play a role in determining how energy/resources are used? What should that role be?
- How can the ideas expressed in this article be related to topics such as why many people don't recycle?
- Is capitalism bad for the environment?
50 comments:
Yes, I believe government should play a roll in determining energy resources and how they should be used. The government, especially in these times, if they want to go green must take control of the industry and give benefits or install regulations that will help accomplish this. No regulation on the market does not get the job done.
The article talks about high prices for the consumers. To change Britain's ways and become greener, it would be at a price for the people, so they do not care about the "greener" benefits. Just like recycling, it's more of a problem to people than it is an incentive.
Capitalism is bad for the enviornment in the case that it is bad for change. Capitalism is keeping the market from going green. The technology is there as well as the desire, but this competition in a market that is still thriving makes it hard for owners to change their ways.
The government should definitely be playing a role in determining how energy and resources are used. Our environment is too important to be left up to chance, if we allow it to run its course, it will be too late for us. We are our planet, and if we do not take the necessary steps to maintain it, we will be destroyed along with it. When people are not regulated, they will be too selfish to take action against global warming and other environmental problems that are arising due to our vices. As the government regulates other areas of the market such as business, it should also be able to take control of the environmental crises with laws, taxes, programs, and whatever else is needed to get something done towards slowing down this detrimental process. This can be related to why people don't recycle because in both situations people are too lazy and too lost in the present to worry about the repercussions of their actions. Capitalism is no worse for the environment then other economic systems; however, government involvement is needed to make sure steps are being taken to help the planet and laissez-faire capitalism does not allow for this. Therefore, a regulated capitalistic market is ideal towards helping the environment, energy, and resources.
Yes, the goverment should get involved in determining how eneergy recources are used. The goverment should set limits and mandate the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions allowed. The idea of laisseaz-faire is one that although are country was built on should not apply to energy resources. If we continue at this rate by the year 2022 it is predicted that we will be over 100 million tonnes of creenhouse gas emissions then that of our target goal. The goverment must start setting mandates on things like the type of cars we drive and the amount of electricty we use.
It is clear many people do not recycle because there mindset is "what can recycling just one bottle do?" or "I'm just one person i cant effect the enviorment." However if people understood the general trend graph and worked together they would realize that simple easy things such as recycling can have major long term effects on our enviorment. Just look at brittan although it cost them 1.4 billion dollars and they are still producing less renweable energy then their european neigbors. This is why a change like this cannot just come from the goverment the people must all work together and do the little things like recycle.
Capitilism is defintly bad for the enviorment. The whole idea of capitilism that the strong survive, and all bussinesses are in compititon with each other is the exact opposite views of enviormental conservationalists. It would be best for the enviorment if we all worked together and set limits on how big certain bussinesses could get and how much carbon dioxide they can priduce. However under capitilism bussiness must keep getting bigger and try to out produce their competetors. This will lead to more trees being cut down and more carbon dioxide being omitted.
I think the goverment should have a role in determining how energy/resources are used because theres such a high demand for very scares fossil fuels. Also most goveremnt need these fossil fuels to help there armys if there is a war or if there at war currently. The role the goveremnt should play should be setting a current standard on to how much of these fuels people can use. This would force people to find new ways around them and ultimatly result is no dependency on fossil fuels. Some people work had to preseve the enviorment but other dont because its an option and there not forced to. Yes because bussiness are greedy and all they care about is making money, not the condition of the enviorment or how it will effect future generoitoins
I think that government should play a role in determining how energy/resources are used. Though the government should never control anything entirely, they should monitor consumer consumption for the consumer’s own good, so that people will not use an excessive amount of resources that could lead to a complete depletion of a necessary resource. Also, consumers tend to use products that ruin the environment, and if the government does not step in to protect it, the country may soon loose all of its natural greenery and vegetation.
Just like consumers don’t buy energy-efficient cars even though they know they should, likewise they are not interested in recycling, for although it does good to the environment, they feel that it is not benefiting them directly. Usually, if there is no financial or other personal incentive, the public is not willing to do anything to benefit the environment.
Though capitalism is not necessary is not necessary directly detrimental to the environment, a free market economy may contribute to consumers’ nonchalance towards society’s greater goal of environmental preservation. Since a free-market economy functions on personal gain, consumers are often unwilling to do anything that will benefit someone other then themselves.
The government shouldn’t play a role in determining how energy / resources are used. However, due to the nature of business and people, it is essential that government get involved in order to regulate the industry and the global environment. Governments should not take a very active role in controlling energy/resources, but should only step in when a clear problem has presented itself and needs to be solved. When a problem, such as the depletion of natural gas arrives, the government must take action to ensure that the needs of the people are met first. This includes ensuring that nobody that needs electricity goes without it. While there are some products that can be regulated naturally by the economy, many necessities need government intervention to make sure that people are able to survive more so than business is able to succeed.
The ideas expressed in the article can be directly related to causes why people choose not to recycle. The primary reason that people don’t recycle is lack of motivation. The same holds true as to why businesses choose not to adapt more energy-efficient methods and sources of electricity. While it is much more beneficial for the environment to use these green methods, there is no direct financial gain for the business. The same holds true for recycling – while it does benefit the environment hugely, the personal gain just doesn’t exist.
Capitalism is very bad for the environment. The basis of capitalism is unregulated business. However, without regulation, businesses can, and do waste resources and focus entirely on profits. Capitalism thrives on the idea of competition, which sets market prices. However, it fails to take into account the world’s necessary, but non-renewable resources. It also fails to take into consideration basic human nature. Capitalists like to believe that people will take into account a business’ practices and product sources before purchasing a product, but for a large majority of consumers, the only determining factor between two products is the price. Consumers don’t care enough whether one company offsets their carbon emissions, or another only uses green resources. Consumers care whether one costs less than the other. Therefore, to survive in the market, manufacturers must use these environmentally-unfriendly sources of energy in order to lower the cost of manufacturing, and therefore lower the cost of the product in order to stay competitive. This completely disregards any environmental practices, and therefore must be regulated, just as monopolies must be regulated, in order to provide for the public good.
I believe that the government should play a very active role in determining how energy/resources are used. As seen with Great Britain, carbon emissions are decreasing at an insufficient rate. The government needs to step in as the green police, whether it be enforcing mandatory emission caps for cars, or enforceing a minimum carbon price to encourage the use of alternative energy. The main problem in the energy crisis, along with why many people don't recycle, is the ignorance/apathy of the people. Many don't realize how destructive their decisions are, or how the decisions of many people can culminate into a global crisis. As a result, many do not buy energy-efficient appliances or insulate their houses. Thus, leaving "green" issues in the hands of the people is a bad idea; laissez-faire capitalism is generally bad for the environment.
Yes I believe that government should play a role in the amount of pollution that can be put into the air. The role should be that the government makes most of the decisions. Government makes somewhat of a decisions now but not enough. Company’s that put high amounts of pollutants in the air should have to be turned into a more energy efficient plant. But the company’s that don’t put as much should have the decision to change over.
The ideas expressed in the article can make people not want more energy efficient ways because sometimes it could be expensive for a company to change. The way that they have now could be working for them and for them to change over might be costly or unfamiliar.
Capitalism could be bad because the government isn't getting envolved.
1. I think that the government should play some role in determining how resources and energy should be used. As the article shows, an unregulated economy fails to establish environmentally friendly procedures, as they are not explicitly mandated by the government. If the government were to regulate business, the system could feasibly change for the better. Though the government should not have too much say in the economy, minimal involvement could protect the environment and create a more efficient system.
2. In my opinion, many people do not recycle for the same reasons that businesses fail to become eco-friendly. People are too stuck in their old ways to consider changing, regardless of the positive consequences of such a change. With no one to require that standards for recycling are met, it is likely that people will see no benefit to environmentalism and recycling.
3. I believe that capitalism can be bad for the environment. To reduce carbon emissions is a process often more expensive than keeping preexisting conditions, and there is little motivation for an unregulated economy to change.
The government should play a role in how energy resources should be used. In times when global warming and carbon-gas emmissions are through the roof, the government should have power over industries to reduce emmissions.
The ideas expressed by the article are related to topics such as why many people don't recycle because people, although they should, have the choice whether to recycle or not.
Yes, capitalism is bad for the environment because business, such as gas companies, are selling a non-reuseable source at hgih prices and are not planning on stopping. This is hurting both the economy and the enviroment. The "invisible hand" of capitalism cannot regulate the economy as fast as the people are selling
Yes the government should play a role in determining how energy/ resources are used. The government should monitor the use, in order to ensure we don’t use up all of our natural resources, set laws to decrease the amount of green house gasses released in to the ozone, and help to find alternate sources of energy so that we are not so dependent on one.
This article can be used to express related topics, like how many people don’t recycle. It does by saying that greenhouse gasses do need to be reduced but the price is to high. People aren’t likely to go green when the prices are so high, Britain spent 1.4 billion in 2008 and other nations around them are still producing a greater amount of renewable resources then Britain is.
Yes because capitalism has a laissez-faire government. It allows people to handle natural resources and omit greenhouse gasses as they please, because there are no laws to regulate it. This causes harm to the environment, because most companies/people aren’t going to make the change on there own do to the high price it would be for the switch.
No the government should not determine how energy/resources are used. Through supply and demand the businesses of a market should be able to determine how energy and resources are used.
The ideas expressed in this article can be related to such topics as why many people do not recycle because they are not motivated enough. Most often a garbage can is nearer to them, and because there is no law requiring people to recycle that which can be recycled, people choose to do the easier thing, and just throw it out.
Capitalism is somewhat harmful to the environment. The reason for this is that in a capitalist society, businesses want to make as much of a profit as possible, so they are going to use as many resources possible at optimal production. Therefore, this ideology consumes much of the available resources, and a large amount of emissions are pumped into the air continuously.
I do not believe the government should play a role in how energy/resources are produced. I feel this way because the government should not be able to tell businesses what goods to produce or how much of that good to produce. For the government to do so would go against the very principles this country was founded on, namely being freedom from a controlling, tyrannical ruler. This article says that because companies have been left alone, they are not meeting standards of reducing emissions set by the CCC. However, I do not fault the businesses for this as much as I do the consumer. I believe that businesses have the technology and can produce more efficient and "green" products, but the demand for these goods is low so in direct correlation, less of the products are supplied. The consumer, being unwilling to pay more for the "green" goods, has told the businesses what they want produced, which is the cheapest form of energy they can get their hands on. In conclusion, it is up to the consumer to demand more efficient energy products and green goods, if they want to change the enviroment.
No the government should not play a role in determining how energy/resources are used. The main function of the government should be to regulate, not control. Some businesses need to have higher energy and thus, have more waste. The government can recommend what is best for the environment but it should ultimately be up to the business in what is best for them to participate in the market. Some businesses tend not to recycle much because of money. Especially now, businesses are trying to cut back on what they don’t need, most tend to cut out the environment and its concern. While it should be the business the makes the choice, the choice shouldn’t be not to completely ignore it. This is why carbon emissions are only dropping less than 1% a year rather than 2-3%. Capitalism is probably best for the environment. While it is not great for businesses to be told what they can and can not do, the government in control would most likely make sure all businesses have a set policy on what the can emit and how much they can recycle. I’m not a supporter of this method but this would be the easy and fast why to fix the problems we are having with to cut carbon emissions and reduce pollutants.
1. Government should take control of how energy and resources are being used. People will not try to help the environment unless they're being pushed to do so. The government needs to make it convenient for people to be able to change to green power, by lowering prices or giving subsidies for doing so.
2. Like most topics in the article,such as changing to green power or energy efficient appliances, recycling is also seen as an extra step that people don't think is necessary. People do not want to spend the extra time to separate garbage and recycle what they can.
3. Capitalism is unregulated, and as bad as it is economically it is also bad environmentally. Businesses can do what they please, and they will not care about spending extra money on caring how to use enrgy and resources efficiently.
The government should play a role in determining what resources are used. They should set limits on the carbon emissions companies can use. They should also tell companies to use more experimental fuel such as hydrogen and solar to eliminate out need for fossil fuels.
People do not recycle because they feel they dont have to. A person thinks that just them recycling will not make a difference on the environment. The government does not make it an issue to recycle so people dont do it.
Capitalaism is bad for the environment because if a country is making money on a fuel source bad for the environment they will continue to use that fuel source. Also we are dependent on fossil fuels as our main fuel source so oil companies can charge a high price and most people will have no choice but to purchase it.
Yes, the government should play a role in how resources are used, because companies are going to only look out for their own self-interest. This means that somebody has to look out for the interest of both the people and the enviornment, so this is where government should come in. The goverment should overlook how resources are being used and intervene when these resources are being used irresponsibly.
Capitalism is harming the enviornment because companies are only looking out for how they can make a profit, not how they can save the enviornment.
Yes, the government should be involved in limiting the amount of energy resources. They should not set a national limit, but instead should take into consideration the needs of each business as an individual. They should assess how much energy and resources that company needs in order to function and give them specific limits for their resources and should strictly enforce them.
People don't recycle because they don't see their direct impact in the green movement. People as a whole are after instant gratification and with the green movement, the consequences to their actions take time to reveal themselves. If more people understood the trend graph and realized that recycling really does make a difference they would be more likely to do so.
Yes, capitalism is bad for the envrionment because it causes companies to be more hesitant when it comes to spending money in order to help the planet.
I believe the government should play a major role in how energy and its resources should be used. The role should not be too powerful, however I believe it should be properly used in order to monitor and control the amount of carbon emissions. Capitalism is very bad for the environment because all businesses are competing with eachother to produce and sell more and more goods on a day to day basis. If there was more of an effort to work together and understand it would be best for the environment , then government regulation would not be needed.
I think that our government should play a roll in determining energy resource distribution. People can not be trusted to use resources effectively and efficiently by themselves and assitance through government policies is very necessary.
People shy away from acts like recycling and other things such as that because it is not a direct benefit to the person who chooses whether or not to recycle.
Capitalism doesn't benefit the environment at all because "going green" takes away from effieciency. Because capitalism is a system based upon maximum efficiency and maximum profit, taking time and money and putting it towards protecting the environment won't work.
Yes,I believe government should play a part in determining energy resources and how they will be utilized. The government needs to taker action in order to make green and environmentally friendly policy while also promoting green products as a better alternative.
Many people don't recycle because either they feel it is too expensive and not cost effiecent or their townships don't provide an adequate recycling program. If the government were to put into law a recycling bill that promised a tax break for being an active recycler I'm sure more people would be willing to recycle.
Capitalism is bad for the environment due to the idea that drives capitalism at its most basic levels. Competition. Competition leads to businesses taking the most effective and proven methods of producing revenue, for many that means not going green which in turn contributes to the overall problem that the entire planet is facing and that is the destruction of our natural resources and mainly the earth itself.
1.) Yes, if the government isn't satisfied with how the corporations utilize energy, then they need to be the ones to takes steps towards going green. Corporations are mostly concerned with getting the job done at an uncostly rate and that usually doesn't entail environmentally friendly production. The government should develop guidelines or limiting factors on how to produce different products to minimize pollution and maximize cleanliness.
2.) It is the little things that matter. Even though the article is expressing views on government regulation, it is also important for the people to come together and help. Mostly, people don't recycle because they feel it's a chore or unnecessary or it doesn't really matter. In fact, it is very important, and Britain has proved that because of their low carbon emission.
3.) Capitalism is bad for the environment in the way that the strongest survive, and in our society, wealth equals strength. If the entrepreneurs are going to maximize their own efficiency and profit, then they will take the cheapest route possible to get their jobs done, and that usually entails extreme pollution to different aspects of our environment. As competition continues, less and less business owners are likely to change their ways.
Yes I believe the government should play a roll in determining energy resources and how they should be used. The government should be promoting the cleanest, most efficient energy source available, nuclear. By using this, greenhouse gas emissions will drastically decrease, there will be more jobs available, and the cost of producing energy would be much less after the initial cost of building the plant.
The ideas expressed in this article can relate to the idea of why people do not recycle because people have no motivation to do it. With some sort of incentive, people will decide against it because they do not believe one person can have such an impact on the envirionment. However with milions of people having this mindset, they will have a large combined impact.
Capitalism is bad for the environment due to the laisseaz-faire policy. With the government no having any imput in the market, their will be now way they will be able to control the emissions of the nation.
This is Joe Stefurak using Staakes name.
I think the goveremnt should take control of how energy resuorces are used. if they dont take control of this situation then our society will continue to burn fossil fueles and harm the world.
The goverment should make it chreaper and easier for people to buy more fuel efficent cars and greener heating system. their should be incentives for buisness that use green resources.
i do believe capitalism is bad for our enviroment. capitialism makes it easier for a buisness to create things the cheaper way. by making it the cheaper way it is harming our enviorment.
Yes, I think that the government should play a role in determining how energy and resources should be used. As shown in Great Britain, an unregulated energy market fails to cut down carbon emissions at a sufficient rate. If any country wants to go green and become more environmentally friendly, government intervention must occur to either force this to happen or create some incentive to do so.
Similar to the lack of effort in British government to reduce carbon emissions, the individual people are also slow to make “green” decisions. Part of the problem is that people will only do something if it benefits them directly. Since recycling or using renewable resources doesn’t benefit the individuals directly, they may find it a hassle and have no incentive to make these choices.
Capitalism can definitely be bad for the environment because there is no real regulation which doesn’t give people motivation to change and go green. When only the strong survive, there is no extra time or money to spend on making a business environmentally friendly.
Yes I believe the government should play a active role in regulating how energy/resources should be used. They should set limits on how much of each resource can be used over a certain period of time to prevent a tragedy of the commons. The article talks about people wanting to go green only because its beneficial economically speaking, unlike recycling which is more of a burden on the people which removes the likelihood of people taking the time to recycle. Capitalism is in a sense bad for the environment in the sense that is makes the people more interested in the economics of right now rather than down the road when resources are scarcer.
Yes I believe the government should play a active role in regulating how energy/resources should be used. They should set limits on how much of each resource can be used over a certain period of time to prevent a tragedy of the commons. The article talks about people wanting to go green only because its beneficial economically speaking, unlike recycling which is more of a burden on the people which removes the likelihood of people taking the time to recycle. Capitalism is in a sense bad for the environment in the sense that is makes the people more interested in the economics of right now rather than down the road when resources are scarcer.
Yes, the government should play a role in determining how energy and resources are used. This role should be regulating resources and making sure that they arent over used. Also, by enforcing laws about recycling and reusing common materials that are used every day. Many people dont buy things that are energy efficient because of the prices. It is more expensive to save the enviornment by switching over to solar energy materials and in this economy people can't afford it. Capitalism, in a way, is bad for the enviornment because most people dont care. Unless it is affecting them right now, the people would rather do whats easier. For people to be willing to change their ways it would have to be an easy and cheap transition, which it is clearly not.
The government should take control in the struggle to be green. Companies, as well as individuals, don't make the initiative to live greener because they don't see how important it is. With government regulation, bills can be passed to require more environmentally conscious decisions to be made that could cost businesses more than just an unstable environment. Requiring businesses to use more nuclear power, rather than fossil fuels, puts more effort to fixing the environment than just suggesting they should make the change.
Most companies won't change because they've used less energy efficient products for a long time or because they feel they have more accuracy when it comes to production. This same perspective complies with individuals as well. Many people won't recycle because they've never had to before. The green movement is fairly new, and most of the population was not born into the idea of working towards a healthy environment. The effort to separate paper and plastic is strange and time consuming to individuals who never worried about it before.
Capitalism itself is not bad for the environment. Many different types of governments involve the growth of industries to satisfy the needs of the people. The efforts and capital put into making industries more efficient has helped create today's environmental struggle. Capitalism, merely gives people the opportunity to create a higher standard of living for himself. The decisions made in retrieving this higher standard are what hurt the environment. In the twenty-first century, there's been an increase in many environmentally cautious decisions that have an outcome that supports higher living. Efforts for greater accuracy in helping the environment are turning out to be more profitable than before, now that more people are looking to join in the struggle.
I believe that the government should play a role in determining how energy and resources are used. Having control over this is important because in today's time, society is trying to go green and the only way to do this is if the government has some control and regulation over what goes on. They should be on top in determining ways to become green and they should decide which products are safe and which are un-safe for the environment.
Many people do not recycle basically because they are just plain lazy. Also some people believe that just because they recycle, it doesn't mean their neighbor will recycle and therefore their impact means nothing to the environment.
I believe that capitalism is bad for the environment because everyone is competiting with each other to produce more and more goods.
I think that the government should play a small role in determining how energy/resources are used. If the government had complete control then things would stay the same and we will never start to use alternative energy because of lobbyists and other groups who benefit from leaving things how they are. If the government had a smaller role the people can determine where our energy comes from and how to use their resources the way they want. The government should moniter the resources and make sure nothing gets out of hand, and step in only when a problem arises to help solve it.
The ideas expressed in the article relate to why people do not want to switch over to renewable and alternative sources of energy. Even though they may be better for the environment, people do not want to switch because it is not worth it to them as an indivdual because they have to spend more money to switch to more efficient methods, and it does not benefit them. This is the same reason why businesses won't switch. They have to spend money to change their source of energy, and they get nothing out of it.
Capitalism is bad from the environment because it means there is little government intervention. This means businesses will focus on only making money with no regard to resources and they will just waste them if it is easier for them. The opportunity is there for businesses to conserve resources, but they would rather focus on the success of the business then on the environment.
I think that the governmnet should play a role in determining how energy and resources are used. If they don't, people will abuse them and waste valueble resources. In these economic times, it is very important to conserve our resources as much as possible. The government should install regulations and give people and businesses incentives for going green.
Many people don't recycle because they feel they can't make a huge impact on the world by recycling one thing. If everyone started to recycle, it would be huge and we will see carbon emissions decrease.
Capitalism is bad for the environment if they don't regulate it at all. Everyone will be competing with each other and will emit large amounts of carbon. They want to make the most money and produce the most and they don't care if they are hurting the environment.
The government should play a role in the use of energy and resources. If left to the free will of people, selfishness is more likely to take over and go the easy way rather than taking the extra step just to save on emissions therefore leaving our environment for dead. With government regulation, limitations on use of greenhouse resources, and quotas for secondary resource locations, the targeted goal of reduction is more likely to be reached. If we want results, there needs to be a drastic change in everyday life for those results to occur; they won't appear out of thin air. In this case, government regulation is necessary for that change.
Most people don't recycle because of the "one person won't make a difference" theory. If people arn't forced and don't care enough, they'll simply ignore the suggestions and warnings and go on with their daily lives. Asking the public to begin recycling and switch to environmentally friendly products is a financial inconvenience as well and an inconvenience in general.
At the moment, capitalism is working against our environment. It is free and unregulated and the combination of those two concepts allows for environmentally hurtful decisions. For example, demand in the automobile world is for the same gas that has been fueling our cars for years now instead of a more environmentally friendly version. Businesses are therefore more keen to sell this gas rather than switch to a new item and competition is then created and built around that. The main concern in a business is not "save the earth," it's to make a profit. Out of free will, the business is more likely to benefits the business, not the environment
I believe that the government should take a more active role in the environment. The government has to be there to set the laws and enforce them in regards to the environment. It they do nothing than our problem is going to get worse to the point of no return.
The article talks about the cost to the British people if they were to go green. People are not into things if they don’t directly benefit them, or there is not enough incentive for them to go green. The same is with recycling. If people can’t see the benefits to them or if there is not enough then they don’t put forth the effort.
I feel that capitalism is bad for the environment. There isn't enough being done about the environment. There needs to be a greater influence of government regulations on the environmental issues.
Courtney Ryan
Yes, the government should play a role in determining how energy/resources are used. Without government involvment, people are not going to change. The government must act, and they must act fast. Our planet cannot wait around for people to decide that they need to take care of it. The government must get involved and give out some sort of incentive to clean up our planet. The ideas expressed in the article relate to why many people don't recycle because both are about how when something does not affect a person directly they are unintersted in it. Yes, capitalism is bad for the environment because with no regulation on the environment nothing is going to get done. The environment is completly different than the finance economy. Therefore, we need to treat both of them differently. Market force will lead to an eco-friendly future because people will have no choice but to follow the law.
The government should have a role in determining how resurces are used. They should decide what products can potientally hurt the environment and make sure that those items are improved or not allow them to sell.
Many people don't recycle because they don't care. People don't buy environmentally safe product similar to way they don't recycle. It doesn't help them at the time so people don't feel that they need or should recycle.
Capitalism in itself is not bad for the environment. It is a complicated system and the reason that products that are bad for the environment sell better is because they work better, are cheaper, are advertised better, etc. If energy efficent products fit the want and need of the people, they would sell and capitalism wouldn't be considered the problem.
I belive that the government should play a part in deciding how the energy sources should be used. If the government does not take control, our environment will become worse because many people don't care about it enough to take deliberate action, and eventually the environment will just become worse over time. If the governemt helps play a part, it will regulate the amount of energy one will be allowed to use. Such as car types, amount of carbon dioxide, and energy.
Many people don't feel the need to "go green" because many will rely on all the other people that do care about the environment to take action to recycle and conserve energy. However, this is a problem because not many people do care about the environment. Also, it will cost more money for the people, and many would rather spend their money on something else. When people don't see how recycling one bottle will benifit the environment directly, many give up on the idea of "going green." However, many do not understand that if everyone does help together and recycle, it can lead to bigger benifits in the end.
Capitalism is bad for the environment and will not help in the process of conserving energy. If government allows capitalism, businesses will abuse the power, and will be able to use as much carbon dioxide and other energy to increase production. However, many will not go green due to the competition in the market field. No one is going to risk their productions, to save the environment.
I think the government should play a role. We have waited long enough for the people to do something about it but there are just so many of us and too little people are actually doing something. The government needs to regulate certain things I think to give people a push in the right direction. Too many people have no regard for the enviorment but it is a growing problem and even though it might not affect them, they need to think about the future. I think it is time to give control to the government because there are people that are willing to take steps in improving our use of the enviornment. Capitalism is bad for the enviornment because it gives people the sense that if it doesn't affect them its not their problem. The people that have the money don't care at all about whats going on with the enviornment and that is why the government needs to step in.
The government should play an active role in regulating how energy and resources are used.Our environment is just too important and vulnerable to be left alone. If government does not take any necessary actions, as this article suggests, greenhouse gas will never drop enough, which will in return, have tremendous effects on us. Now is the time for the government to take responsibilitiy and get involved in "green buisnees" to save this planet and human beings,by enforcing mandatory emission caps for cars, or enforcing a minimum carbon price.
People do not recycle because they do not think that it would benefit them directly although it is very clear that recycling will make this planet "greener" and provide better environment to live. It seems like that it is just human nature that does not care about anything unless it has some kind of incentives.
Capitalism is definitely bad for the environment. With the least government involvement or interaction, all businesses compete against each other to lower the cost of inputs whether the process is environmentally-friendly or not. This completely fails to take into account the environmental issues and thus creates huge problems.
The government should be playing a role in determining how energy resources are used. If the government wants to improve the environment, subsidies need to be given to alternate energy companies, which would result in a lower cost of alternate energy. Currently solar panel are extremely expensive, so very few homes have them; however if the price to solar panels decreased due to government subsidies, more consumers would purchase solar panels. Many people do not recycle, because they feel like they have little to gain from recycling. For many people the five cents to recycle cans is not enough incentive to recycle. Capitalism is bad for the environment. Currently even with the high prices of gasoline, gas is still less expensive than alternate forms of energy. Therefore due to capitalism there is a large demand for gasoline, and a low demand for “green energy.”
The government should not play a part in this role. They should not get involved in the market because it will effect more than just the environment. Even though businesses and consumers are not going green as quickly as the government would have hoped, if they get involved they will not only change the health of the environment, but the health of the economy as well.
People do not recycle because they do not feel they personally gain from it. Just like businesses in the article do not go green is because they do not see what they are getting out of it. In our society everyone is looking out for themselves which is why they pay no heed to helping the environment until it has a direct effect on them. However government involvement cannot fix this. If they impose laws forcing businesses to go green, some will fail due to their reliance on harmful fuels. The market needs to work itself out at its own pace. If it is forced into this then it will suffer.
Capitalism is bad for the environment at the present time. Competition and the idea of self gain is causing people to not care about the environment and only do things to help themselves. But eventually the damaged environment will start to hurt companies and people directly. At this point things will start to change and the economy will alter itself to help the environment and itself.
For the most part I think that the government should not have a lot of control over how people use the earth’s resources. I believe some regulation is acceptable to prevent people from destroying the earth but other wise there should be little regulation.
People don’t recycle for the same reason they don’t support other “green” movements. They don’t support theses movements because they don’t think the effort is worth the cost. People can’t be bothered to do something as simple as recycling a bottle. If people can’t be bothered to take the time to recycle, than why would they spend more money on a more expensive hybrid car? I is just that people can’t be bothered.
Capitalism is not bad for the environment because capitalism motivates people to create new technologies that are more environment friendly. They are motivated to create environment friendly technologies because have a technology that is environment friendly becomes a selling point that can be used in advertisements that will ultimately increase sales and profit.
Yes the should play a role in determining the way energy and resources are used. The energy and resources can no longer be allowed to be used based upon the market with things like the looming climate changes, electricity shortages, and fears about relying on imported energy.
The biggest problem that people have with recycling is they believe it is more expensive to recycle than it is to just remake something.
Yes capitalism is bad for the environment because of the idea of comeptition. It is expensive to go green so if a company did so to balance the expense with profits the company would have to increase prices for consumers. This works against a company if its competitors do not make the change since their prices will be lower.
I believe government should play a role in determining the use of energy resources. In countries like Great Brittain, carbon emissions are decreasing insufficiently. It is important that government can mandate and limit the amounts of carbon emissions use, thus not leaving a "greener" US up to chance. This article expressed ideas that the reason people dont recycle is because they have a lack of will and motivation. People think that nothing is directly in it for them if they give up their time to recycle, when really they are preserving their environment. Capitalism is bad for the environment because unregulated businessess focus too much on profits and self interest rather than the interests of all others. Since capitalism supports competition, business will keep growing thus makeing resources ever more finite.
The government has every right to be involved in energy policy. For example, on Long Island, we are forced to buy from National Grid, if the government didn't set price ceilings then what would we all be paying for electricity. Back to resources though, since government controls a specific area of land, it should be able to control all capital that is available in that territory as well. In order to ensure that entrepreneurs are using resources responsibly and in an environmentally sound way, gov't has no choice but to intervene.
The biggest reason that new sources of energy aren't used is because they are expensive, just like recycling. The initial cost is much higher than the initial benefit and most people don't see any incentive to pay extra in order to preserve the environment.
There is no doubt in my mind that capitalism is bad for the environment. When you let people loose to do whatever they want, they will attempt to make the largest profit possible, and if that means polluting the earth they'll do it. A good example would be the large amounts of mercury found in ocean tuna. Since there were no laws against dumping toxic wastes, companies dumped them into the ocean and now we unsafe amounts of a toxin in our food.
The government should regulate energy, but only to a certain extent. Everyone should have energy available to them, but if limits are placed it may infringe on rights and what not. So, a little intervention is good, but only when really demanded.
Recycling not only helps the environment, it helps businesses that produce goods that can be recycled. The irony in this situation is that consumers have the ability to lower the cost of items by recycling, but choose not to because it is not convenient.
Capitalism is fairly dated. It scraped by in the early 1900s due to a few entrepreneurs, but it has proven that it cannot withstand the test of time. The risk of a recession (or depression) should be reason alone to try and find something better than Capitalism. But now that society has placed an emphasis on the environment, and people are becoming more and more aware of it, Capitalism is proving to not be best for the environment at all.
Post a Comment