« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Vincent Hardy
Joined: May 31, 2006
Posts: 1 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 23
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Ottawa
|
the conservative perspective on environment
May 31, 2006 - 05:35 PM
|
|
hello to everyone from all over the world with an interest in saving it. I am knew on the site and find quite amazing...
Anyways, I wanted to discuss the conservative/neo-liberal position on the environment which I find quite absurd.
The way our governments think these days (especially USA and Canada) is that the economy is more important then the environment, therefore doing nothing for this issue.
If we think in those terms (and it is not, in my opinion, the right way), the fact of not having invested at all in the environment is worst for a country's economy in the long term.
Say a country like Canada, stopped investing in petroleum, and invested a bundle in producing effective solar panels. When all the other countries' economy is toast because there is no more petroleum, Canada''s economy will be very strong.
To this you can add all the costs of health-care, water purifying, and every cost linked to pollution which will be saved.
But our leaders only seem to think in the short term. There is absolutely no vision in their way of governing. I am just thinking that even if you're a socialist or a neocon, the environment is the way to go...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Emily Brown
Joined: Jun 6, 2006
Posts: 10 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 24
Country: Canada
Province/State: Prince Edward Island
City: Kensington
|
Re: the conservative perspective on environment
June 6, 2006 - 11:16 AM
|
|
The problem with governments everywhere is that they cannot afford to take risks. We must rely on private funds, foundation grants and charity to 'try, test and prove' new ideas, or even older ideas like solar panels. That process will lead to system change - when the government recognizes the success of something and capitalizes upon it.
While I am not making excuses for a government who has had a surplus for many years now, I can't help but play the devils advocate in pointing out that a million causes are pulling at the governemnts purse strings; welfare, child poverty, child day care, education, health care, arts in schools, large cities even amateur athletes all want and justifyably need the support.
I went a little too far there; it sounds as though there is nothing we can do for the environment, and nothing we can expect the government to do. It really is about system change though. We need to, and can, find ways to prove to the government that we can / have to save our environment.
Taking a different approach, I think I'll mention that I myself am from rural Canada. The fact is, farmers are poor - to illustrate my point further there are three eras of farming; pre agricultural, agricultural and agriindustry. Unfortunately, because we want cheap french fries when we go to the grocery store, French Frie manufacturers sign contracts with potato farmers saying that they want X acres of this kind of potato - no more and definitely no less or the contract is void. Obviously, the farmers need to then grow surplus potatos, the consequences of which are two fold. It means there is an surplus of potatoes in the economy which makes potato prices go down (which means they have to grow more to make ends meet) AND it means they are putting more stress on the environment.
I know that was a tangent I just went on, but I hope it illustrates how change really does begin with us as the consumer buying from a local farmer, buying fair trade and cutting out the middle men - the industry. We can definitely blame environmental damage and poor farmers on the government's interest in the economy, but that is the world we all live in.
I agree though, I think thats what I really wanted to say . . . haha!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Rick A. Weiss
Joined: Jun 21, 2006
Posts: 8 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 30
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Newcastle
|
Re: the conservative perspective on environment
June 26, 2006 - 11:55 AM
|
|
Its nice to get some insight into how industry involves itself with agriculture from somebody who is closely connected with it.
Getting a government to prioritize evironmental protection and renewal will be a long and difficult process, I beleive which will be won through awareness and hard work by citizens who desire change.
I agree that the "french fry" manufacturers need to be taken out of this equation. And the hard work I speak of isn't exactly back breaking... Instead of buying processed frozen fries with added fats and flavours, buy locally grown potatos (as ercbrown said) and chop them yourself.
The industries which don't take social responsiblity for their employees, for their customers and for the land that they use must be weakened through boycotts, and product avoidance. Do some research into the ethical and environmental practice of a company that you regularly support and decide whether you really want to continue supporting them. Only when we have shown corporations that being responsible members of the global community is good for business will they begin to be responsible.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Erick Ochieng Otieno
Joined: Sep 25, 2006
Posts: 117 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 34
Country: Kenya
Province/State: Nairobi Area
City: Kassarani
|
Re: the conservative perspective on environment
October 12, 2006 - 09:57 AM
|
|
I believe all that has been said by everyone above is right.However, one thing is fundamental, and that is, "we have to start with ourselves then blame others".Environmental sustainability is our own initiative based and not the governments. Thank you all.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
barbie
Joined: Oct 2, 2005
Posts: 9 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 23
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: the conservative perspective on environment
October 21, 2006 - 11:35 AM
|
|
the fact is that we do live in a market-driven economy, and i don't think that is going to change soon. [i think it can, but it won't be soon enough for the environment] the government has to keep that in mind when developing environmental policies, or risk terrible losses to the economy. despite of what has been said, i think that a healthy economy is crucial to environmental change, because it allows more choice for the citizens. if canada, for example, exoerienced inflation, further down the road the citizens will become poorer.
the change that has to happen must come from the people, the consumers who have the power to change the market. for that purpose we have to have certain financial security so we can afford to make these choices.
the governments are not to blame [although MPs could be doing a better job, and the electoral system could be more representative of the population], because the change has to come from individuals.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Erick Ochieng Otieno
Joined: Sep 25, 2006
Posts: 117 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 34
Country: Kenya
Province/State: Nairobi Area
City: Kassarani
|
Re: the conservative perspective on environment
October 22, 2006 - 04:59 AM
|
|
Thank you very much anwenhwesta for your wonderfull contribution.I believe personaly, 'subject to debate', that economy and the environment are duely related in some way.Why am I saying this?Let's answer the question with this hypothtical question, if for example the environment was well sustained such that there is enough rain and enough ground moisture and there is no environmental degradation, then would it be possible for agriculture based economies to fluorish?If again the environment was degraded due to rise in industrialisatin and consiquently rise in urbanisation, the economy would be good but at what cost on the environment?If for example, there is good econmic development and good policies gurding the environmental degradation, then would it be possible to reduce inflation and at the same time reduce land degradation for future development?Remember, inflation and degradation are always in cycles and an excess of one will lead to the other.Therefore as we strive to have econmies minus inflation, in the same breath we should have econmies minus Land and environmental degradation.Thank you.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Rajesh
Joined: Jan 11, 2005
Posts: 92 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 34
Country: Australia
Province/State: Victoria
City: Melbourne
|
Re: the conservative perspective on environment
November 11, 2006 - 04:14 PM
|
|
I don't want to be so extremist to take one side either economy or environment. Discussing on this issue we don't have to leave the social iaspect also.
We have to balance all these 3 aspects of sustainable development i.e people, planet and profit together. If we just think about the conservation, that is not right one. In my opinion, if we just go for the conservation, then can it be good if we live in forest? Definitely not. Furthermore, we can't destroy the nature also, in between we humankind are there.
So, we have to think about the holistic as well as balance approch. Regarding the leaders, they need power and think that economy is power. They need the lession of eco-ethics. 
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
