Question:
Why is it that the environment is not treated as a really high priority issue by most governments?
jennifer m
2006-07-10 09:03:53 UTC
Isnt it obvious that things are changing? Changing temperatures, rainfall patterns, species extinction, rising water levels. Why arent we more concerned?
Fourteen answers:
Valkanas
2006-07-10 09:43:35 UTC
I believe that government policies designed to save the environment create both direct and indirect costs for the businesses and corporations that operate within that country, as well as for the consumers who purchase their manufactured goods. Any process that is environmentally friendly tends to be more expensive than a process that is not. When the cost of production and manufacturing rises, that cost is ultimately passed on to the consumer. A company cannot be profitable if there is no profit in developing a product. So quite simply, if the cost of production rises, so too shall the cost of the final product. In countries where the political system is in some way controlled or influenced by large corporations, these corporations will fight government policies that would create a rise in the cost of production. The cost of environmentally sound practices is passed on to the business and its consumers. Were such policies put into place, everyday goods would become more expensive. Profit margins for companies would fall, and the consumer's ability to purchase goods would also fall. The world is not yet ready to face the global warming issue, despite the marked changes in the global weather patterns. The financial obligation for a global approach to combat global warming in today's world is just too expensive.



This is also a social issue, not just a political one. People need to be willing to pay more for everyday goods and services. In the developing world, governments and their citizens are not yet in a position to fiscally counter the effects of global warming. And in most western and industrialized nations of this world, economies are based on the consumption of goods and the accumulation of wealth and assets. The environment is not treated as a high priority issue by most governments because the people, the everyday man and woman who pay taxes and purchases goods, cannot afford to be concerned about the environment. This is seen as a problem that will be addressed by future generations, not ours.



Unfortunately, I do not see governments of this world making the environment a high priority for quite some time to come, at least not until the people of the world demand it. Right now, we have only the scientific community showing a serious concern about the environment, and it has slowly started to trickle into mainstream thinking and politics. This issue will only be addressed when it becomes an issue for every man and woman and child on this planet. Without a global consensus, no action will be taken. Right now, the world is fixated on other concerns. The cost of oil. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Growing populations. The growing rifts between class and religions. There is far too much religious, political and economic conflict in the world today for governments to make the environment their priority.
ceprn
2006-07-10 16:12:09 UTC
Because the environment does not impact the economy. Most governments, made up of elected officials, are only concerned with what happens on their shift because that is how they or their political party remain in office. What elected official would be concerned about the long term effect of global warming (the extinction of mankind) when enacting intelligent legislation would perhaps drop the GNP by 20 percent or result in 10 percent of the workforce losing their jobs?



It's like the idiot CEOs who outsource to improve the bottom line for a quarter or year without realizing the long term impact of those "cost saving" measures on the company.
Rob R
2006-07-10 16:11:36 UTC
The environment is not considered first by many nations because the economy of the situation is more critical to their particular needs. Most have no "environmental impact statements" to file before proceeding with most activities.



Some of the worst polluters in the world are China and Russia ... who have NO controls on pollution whatsoever. Yet, it's the United States that everyone points to and says, "Bad boy!"



We DO need to consider and protect the environment where and when we can. We cannot roll back time and we ARE reliant upon fossil fuels at this point in time.



More attention needs to be paid to the environmnet ... but much of what you're hearing right now is political in nature. Thus ... you are led to believe that Bush and the GOP are solely responsible for environmental damage.



It's a case of politics over reality, in my opinion. That doesn't mean the environment doesn't need protecting, because it does. Don't be led astray and think the world is ending. It's not.
mweller1956
2006-07-10 16:25:31 UTC
During the 50 years since my birth, there have been many important issues for society and government to deal with: The Cold War, civil rights and voting rights, LBJ's War on Poverty, the Vietnam War, our dependence on OPEC, economic recession and inflation during the Carter administration, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Persian Gulf War, terrorism striking us here at home, our current war against terrorists on their turf, etc. Even so, the environment has received great attention ever since the Nixon administration created the EPA back in the early 70's. Government today regulates every aspect of human activity impacting the environment! Perhaps more than needed in the case of our oil reserves which go untapped. You one-issue people are myopic, and Al Gore is just a political opportunist who was rejected by voters in his home state of Tennessee in 2000 (thereby losing the election).
LEI
2006-07-10 23:24:05 UTC
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The environment is squeaking enough for us to hear it but it's being drowned out by the media and constituents squeaking their wheels about wanting to sue fast-food for making them fat and other mindless things.



We're not more concerned because we can't see farther than our TV set. How many, if given a chance to give $20 to an environmental cause would spend that $20 on seeing the newest release at the movies instead? We, the constituents, have the power to change the lawmakers priorities. We just need to assemble and start squeaking louder than the others and they'll come running.
2006-07-10 16:13:02 UTC
The answer is cold hard cash. People rise to power in government for wealth. The powers that be are simply selling out. The earth's climate has always been changing. Nothing is static on planet earth. The weather can never be predicted or tamed. To say that we can prevent climate change is ludicrous. Humans are a part of nature and have every right to effect the climate. Mother nature always prevails. Mass is neither created or destroyed. What are you so worried about?
DanielMF
2006-07-10 16:11:33 UTC
I believe the most accurate answer would be that we have incompetent, mostly neo-conservative administration in power at the current time. This administration has failed in every department such as foreign policy (mess in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, North Korea), domestic issues (Katrina, education, health care), so why would we expect anything else but failure when it came to environmental issues. Thankfully, we have a good liberal like Al Gore raising the issue, providing leadership, and showing us why we should have fought harder in 2000 to ensure true democracy. I hope we have learned our lesson and will act upon it in 2006 and 2008.
mrearly2
2006-07-10 16:12:57 UTC
I think you should ask, "Why are these things happening?" As far as the earth becoming warmer goes, it is a natural thing. The earth has a warming and cooling cycle. We appear to be in the warm part.

Species extinction has been occurring long before God placed man on earth.

It is prophesied that the weather will turn nasty. "...upheavals of nature..."--whether it is natural or modified by man (weather modification), the result is the same: it creates hardship. Part of the prophesied punishment for evil man.
dude
2006-07-10 16:06:40 UTC
Because there are A88hole minority special interest groups who take up all the resources and government spend all thier enevrgies in pleasing these minority of people....
2006-07-12 10:54:18 UTC
Because big biz has bought and owns ALL our reps. They do what big biz pays them to do! Big biz rapes the environment for a dollar.
Nani
2006-07-10 16:06:14 UTC
Boy, you hit it right on the head! That should be our number one concern, as well as overpopulation of the planet!
Vie
2006-07-10 16:14:15 UTC
They want to wait until it blows up in their face. Besides, power show off is more fun
FaerieWhings
2006-07-10 16:05:50 UTC
Because there is no money in conserving the environment, only exploiting it.
2006-07-10 16:05:40 UTC
...they dont pay taxes.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...