Delineating society’s selfish fault in prioritizing the economy over the environment, Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, states that “man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself.” The continual stripping of Earth’s limited resources to gain economic power has lead to irreversible damage to the planet. From destroying entire communities in search for fossil fuels, to cutting down our forests leading to the endangerment of numerous species, no part of our planet is safe from the greed of humans who will go to any length to destroy the environment for economic gain. At what cost are we willing to compromise the need for money and resources for the sake of our planet? In the end, the Earth can continue to live on without the human race, but without the Earth, humankind will eventually meet its demise. Laws such as the endangered species act are place in an attempt to help to reduce the aforementioned destruction. Though these laws may infringe on economic growth, we simply cannot sustain the environment and economy as much as both parties hope. In the end, we must prioritize the environment, but in doing so, the economy need not fail, but merely make compromises. In order to fully preserve and protect our declining environmental resources, entities such as business, property rights, and economic growth must be curbed to an extent. While economic growth remains important, our the protection of our planet is paramount.
As a result of increased human needs, we have begun to pollute and destroy our surrounding environment. The earth is in danger, if regulations are not placed in an attempt to deliberately slow production, life on Earth will soon join. Economic activity is one hundred percent reliant on the services and benefits provided by nature. Our society does not want to halt economic progress as it does have many benefits such as creating jobs, but insisting on sustainable development will prove to be even more beneficial than economic growth, as Earth cannot support this uncontained growth. Thomas Malthus a political economist from Great Britain writes in An Essay on the Principle of Population As it affects the future improvement of society (1798) that, “ No limits whatever are placed to the productions of the earth… yet still the power of population being a power of a superior order, the increase of the human species can only be kept commensurate to the increase of the means of subsistence by the constant operation of the strong law of necessity acting as a check upon the greater power” (Malthus 16). Malthus further explains that as our population continues to increase, we will eventually reach a crisis point where there will be no more resources to suffice the need. There must be an attempt to decrease the threat we pose to our environment. While imposing regulations on mass company production may hinder immediate economic profit, but in the long run will prove to be beneficial. This idea of “going green” and regulating companies is a regularly talked about concept especially in the state of California. In the recent years California has been faced with a severe drought. There is not enough water to supply residents with what they need. “An executive order, directed the State Water Resources Control Board to impose a 25 percent reduction on the state’s 400 local water supply agencies, which serve 90 percent of California residents, over the coming year. The agencies will be responsible for coming up with restrictions to cut back on water use and for monitoring compliance,” Adam Nagourney of The New York Times reports. In this instance, California residents are forced to reduce their resources intake as it has now become critical. By limiting regulations of our resources, we can prevent forced cutbacks and threats that you may completely be stripped of a resource as necessary as water.
Laws such as the endangered species act and other environmental regulations are necessary measures to ensure a future of sustainability and well-being for the generations to come. While economic growth remains important, the protection of the environment is still the greater concern. With regulations such as the Endangered Species Act established in 1973, there is a push for preservation of certain species, “The goal was to protect species that were so reduced in numbers or restricted in habitat that a single untoward event could wipe them out” (Easton 81). If these laws were to be completely stripped away, species recovery would be quite nearly impossible. While millions of the population partake and make a living from commercial fishing, the large scale production poses a threat to the recovery of species. Regulation commercial fishermen may result in an initial drop in jobs and economic influx of money from this industry, but the compromise to slow overfishing will help ensure that these people have jobs in their future. While overfishing threatens to diminish populations, as natural reproduction cannot occur as fast as they are being killed off, The World Wildlife Foundation “Gathering as many fish as possible may seem like a profitable practice, but overfishing has serious consequences. The results not only affect the balance of life in the oceans, but also the social and economic well-being of the coastal communities who depend on fish for their way of life.” In the battle between economy and environment, we are forced to essentially choose a side. Long term survival of species is based on the ever changing environmental conditions. Due to humans impact and increasing development and expansion, not only are species threatened due to overfishing but the diminishing biodiversity that species require to expand alongside humans. With an attempt to save the species, there needs to be consideration for property rights and conservation. Species need to be protected and land does in order to keep our society safe from overstripping of our resources.
The unmeasurable price of our environment continues to cause conflict. The benefits of creating stricter environmental regulations may appear to damage local and national economic interests temporarily, but in the long run, preserving natural areas can lead to a stronger and more sustainable economy. Focusing on certain aspects such as the idea of reducing resource use brings up questions of property rights. Does attempting to limiting the actions of landowners infringe on their rights? Looking back to the 1800s, this idea of environmentalism surfaced. This new environmental movement grew strongly in Britain as a response to the Industrial Revolution. The industrial revolution sparked a massive emphasis on production and a large majority of jobs were within large scale factories. While the industrial revolution was beneficial due to technology increases, there were no environmental regulations to stop factories from the extreme pollution they caused. An article titled Industrialization, Pollution and Policies by Elizabeth Healy of Washington State University states that, “Those gases in the air were even causing corrosion on metals and stones that filled the city…This dirty air choked the lungs of people and animals alike. It also caused harm to plants surrounding the city. The only day people may get a breath of fresh air was on a Sunday when the factories were not in use” (Healy). Due to extreme resource depletion during the Revolution, there was a call for more protection of nature due to the amount it destroyed. As a result, an environmental movement began to take shape. In North America specifically, we recognize John Muir, one of the earliest environmentalist. Muir was responsible for the creation of the first National Park. Yosemite National Park sparked the idea that land should be protected and conserved rather than exploited for resources. Other conservation efforts began to take place with President Woodrow Wilson, as he founded the National Park Service, which deeply supported the growing environmental movement. Most protected land is owned by private owners, while these regulations are placed
“Recognizing private land’s importance for the achievement of environmental goals, federal, state, and local governments maintain extensive regulations on private land use. Such regulations typically limit or constrain development and other productive land uses, and can have a significant effect on land values.” Only occasionally do federal courts require government agencies to compensate landowners for the costs of environmental land use controls. While private landowners may not receive complete compensation for their reduced action on their land, we must look at the larger picture and how we will all be compensated in the long run with the protection of our environment. While it may restrict the landowners power over their own land, property belongs to the earth and we must compensate in order to ensure its protection.
Some may say that inhibiting the economy can do just as much damage as inhibiting the environment. “Environmental regulation is too expensive, reduces economic growth, hurts international competitiveness, and causes widespread layoffs and plant closures.” While it is true that sacrificing economic growth is detrimental to many people’s livelihoods, the fact of the matter is that without this sacrifice, many more people’s lives will be affected in the long run. The major problem with enforcing laws regarding environmental protection is that, in the short term, the negative consequences to our lives are much more apparent than the long-term benefits. Environmental protection is not a problem that can be solved within a matter of months, or even years. In some cases, it may take decades for the effects of positive environmental policy to be seen, which is a much longer timespan than many of our policy makers are concerned. In order for environmental protection to achieve any proposed solutions, it may take a huge shift in the public’s perception of consequences, as we need to focus on the longer consequences versus what seems relevant now.
The Earth is the most important resource. Without it, human life would cease to exist. While we continually exploit its amenities, we are causing a problem larger than anything we can take from the surface of the planet. Human greed has gone unregulated for too long, and we are left wondering that if at this rate, what will be left for our future generations? Will there be a future if we continue at this rate? The continual stripping of Earth’s limited resources to gain economic power has lead to irreversible damage to the planet. The destruction of entire communities in search for fossil fuels, to cutting down our forests leading to the endangerment of numerous species, no part of our planet is safe from the greed of humans who will go to any length to destroy the environment for economic gain. What cost are we willing to compromise the need for money and resources for the sake of our planet? The Earth can continue to live on without the human race, but without the Earth, humankind will eventually meet its demise. Laws such as the endangered species act are place in an attempt to help to reduce the aforementioned destruction. Though these laws may infringe on economic growth, we simply cannot sustain the environment and economy as much as both parties hope. In the end, we must prioritize the environment, but in doing so, the economy need not fail, but merely make compromises. In order to fully preserve and protect our declining environmental resources, entities such as business, property rights, and economic growth must be curbed to an extent. While economic growth remains important, our the protection of our planet is paramount.
Works Cited
- Adler, Jonathan. “Money or Nothing: The Adverse Environmental Consequences of Uncompensated Land Use Control.” Boston College Law Review, lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2381&context=bclr.
- Arnold, Frank. “Environmental Protection: Is It Bad for the Economy? A Non-Technical Summary of the Literature (1999).” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 29 Dec. 2017, www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/environmental-protection-it-bad-economy-non-technical-summary-literature.
- Easton, Thomas A. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues. McGraw-Hill Education Create, 2017.
- Healy, Elizabeth. “Industrialization, Pollution and Policies: Comparing England and China.”Spring 2015 Elizabeth Healy, history.libraries.wsu.edu/spring2015/author/elizabeth-healy/.
- Malthus, Thomas Robert. An Essay on The Principle Of Population. Murray, 1826.
- Nagourney, Adam. “California Imposes First Mandatory Water Restrictions to Deal With Drought.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Apr. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/california-imposes-first-ever-water-restrictions-to-deal-with-drought.html.
- “Overfishing.” WWF, World Wildlife Fund, www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing.
