American Economy vs the Environment
Every year, more than 1.1 trillion gallons of pollutant substances and industrial contaminations are disposed into U.S. waters. American economic firms refuse to acknowledge the destructive consequences of their toxic release, viewing financial profit more valuable than the environment itself. Fossil fuel resources are invaluable yet are continuously misused by countries for economic growth. Such activities constantly deplete the natural environment and can have permanent effects on biodiverse regions. However, industrialists are passionate about their financial gains since it increases the nation’s 17.9 trillion GDP. They argue that environmental programs negatively affect America’s manufacturing firms and holds unnecessary expenditures. Many influences from political parties to major businesses adhere to this belief of promoting economic advancement over regulations. They claim that the benefits of such pollution control regulations are unknown, especially to the American public. Although environment friendly policies can slow America from expanding its economic sector, such regulatory policies are necessary to avoid ecological damage on the environment.
In the past 60 years, humans have consumed more nonrenewable resources than ever before. The unregulated usage of sparse supplies such as coal, oil and petroleum contribute to ecological damage. Therefore, without the strict regulation of such reserves, the Earth will suffer catastrophic disasters such as mass deforestation and climate change. However, such alterations are difficult to adapt to due to America’s dependency of fossil fuels. Political motives and economic prospects drive policy makers to abolish pollution control laws. Many manufacturing firms and directorates fail to perceive the long-term effects of such actions especially for our future generations. Once, during a trip to India, I witnessed a largely polluted lake, bursting with waste and other unknown components. Animals and wildlife lost a source of water due to the buildup disposed in the lake. I wondered how many bystanders contributed to this lake’s state, each hoping for another to resolve the problem. Ultimately, due to everyone’s ignorance and lack of responsibility, the lake became useless. Our decisions have unseen consequences that can be proven detrimental if not chosen wisely. According to Annie Dillard’s novel, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, nature should not be viewed as an opportunity for economic development or entertainment. In order to fully understand the destruction certain activities have on habitats, Dillard suggests that “humans must somehow take a wider view, look at the whole landscape, really see it, and describe what’s going on there” (Dillard 11). Dillard urges people to understand the inconceivable damage human activities can create and the irreversibility of such actions. She realizes that destruction of nature to be not only devastating to humankind but nature’s habitat and extinct wildlife as well. While the issue of environment friendly regulations is controversial, the aftermath of irresponsible pollution is indisputable.
However, many American industrialists believe that the benefits of economic development are worth the devastation of a few habitats. In numerical value, The United States has one the world’s largest national economies especially in the industrial aspects of resources. These productions also account for the creation of “onsite release and off site releases” toxic pollutants in America (Franz 1). Although economy policy makers claim that industrial regulations constrain the nation’s economic growth, empirical evidence proves that strong environmental policies strengthen the economy over a long period. When governments increase expenses for “air, water and waste pollution control”, it creates a more positive impact, “since better environmental conditions attract more firms” (Kang 2). More environmental programs also help create more profit by reducing information and coordination costs in government organizations. Research shows that by adopting efficient production lines, major industries can improve atmospheric pollution and other discharges. Not only does this prove that the industrialist standpoint is wrong but unveils possible ulterior motives behind such claims. According to IJED journalist, Joohyun Kang, many state economic administrations are influenced by political and business motives. In fact, many influential manufacturing businesses have significant power in state politics. Interest groups thus have questionable influence in executive processes of state governments regrading regulations. Kang’s research also reveals that Republican parties traditionally are more likely to favor economic development policies while Democrats prefer regulatory ideas. In 2017, President Trump withdrew America from the Paris Climate Accord, claiming it to be harmful economically by “costing a vast fortune” (Raymond 1). However, studies prove that environmental policies do not obstruct American industrial growth but aids in transforming it to productions that are more efficient and attractive to foreign investments. Therefore, such positive implications of pollution control policies outweigh the supposed negative impact, deeming the industrialists’ argument invalid.
The American government has been criticized many times for their negligence of North America’s biodiverse regions. The government’s environmental policies have also been a recent cause of criticism, especially in regards to pollution control. Ironically, Americans only constitute about 5% of the world’s population, yet consumes more than 25% of the world’s natural resources. There are numerous benefits to establishing more pollution regulatory laws, ranging from better health security to useful industrial savings. For instance, the Clean Air Act and Marine Sanctuaries Act control factory pollution emissions into oceans and atmosphere. Such regulatory acts not only guard the American people from deadly diseases such as lung cancer but also prevent declining aquatic populations from extinction. More than 394 million people inhabit North America, each risking the aftereffects of untreated pollution or waste products. Despite the dangers, the chemical and industrial sectors of the American economy leaders “increased its pollutant transfers 14%” in the past 10 years (Franz 1). According to Figure 12.1 of the Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Energy Consumptions record, America’s petroleum and fuel usage overshadows any other natural resource spending. When fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is discharged into the atmosphere, causing more unpredictable natural disasters and climate change. Therefore, it is important to realize that such laws help prevent inconsiderate discharges of pollution onto protected territories. Another beneficial feature of more unified regulations is the positive financial impact on state government economies. By minimizing administrative transaction expenses, the government could save a significant amount of money. In fact, economic firms in states with environmental programs save up to “2,719 more in new capital investment” than states without centralize regulation (Kang 4). Due to such policies, more sustainable technology will develop, as companies would have to follow stricter regulation laws, causing engineers and developers to create more ecologically friendly equipment. Rather than creating more economic expansions through untreated pollutant wastes, America can improve their economy with ecologically friendly machineries while reducing land pollution. These creations will boost the country’s technology sectors while ensuring a protectorate of America’s habitats. Hence, through improved public health, monetary profit and wildlife protection, pollution control policies are more beneficial to the country than industrial development ideas.
Millions of Americans depend on Earth’s natural resources for food, shelter and prosperity. However, mistreatment of such valuable reserves not only ruins habitable lands but also prevents usage for future generations for years to come. While industrial and technological advances are important in regards to the welfare of the American people, it should not affect the biodiversity of the environment. Instead, more guidelines for unregulated manufacturing and industrial firms should be initiated to protect such tangible habitats. Rather than advocating for industrial security interests, political and economic leaders need to unite against combating pollution and toxic contamination. While environment friendly policies have debatable outcomes in the eyes of industrialists, such practices are necessary to prevent irreversible damage on the environment.