We are on the roads to eventually discover better methods and new technologies that will make this world a more environmentally friendly place, and we better be quick because once the Arctic and Antarctic Ice sheets melt, underground reserves may get discovered, right?
Basically, the poles of the Earth may be filled with untouched natural resources. If oil does show up within these locations once they melt the world may once again stop green investment and procrastinate.
(Goodness I'm almost getting quite tired of making KIs, they seem so lame to me now).
Human beings want profit, wealth and adequate life, and in terms of economics, this can be easily achieved through efficiency (high output and low cost). Yes, efficiency = environmental damage in most cases. All this is stated clearly in our economics textbooks but do they go into good practice? The answer is quite simply, not at all.
For Eugen Maersk the task of switching to sulphur fuels will hamper business efficiency but boost environmental rating and vice versa. It makes me wonder about the Gaia Theory. If the Earth itself is a living thing, it seems to respond so effectively as if it was a stakeholder of the whole economic model. If a firm becomes big and powerful, smaller companies around it will fall out of competition. Likewise, when nations ran by human beings achieve economic success, Mother Nature suffers. Like economics and the concept of scarcity, there will be winners and losers, and we have been winning since the industrial revolution. Think about it, if only we can live like ants where no one wins nor loses would this world be better? Does the concept of economics conflict with environment? Is Mother Nature itself a concept created by sympathisers? To what extent is scarcity the only ultimate factor that determines the two outcomes 'WIN' or 'LOSE'? If so, will infinite resources mitigate this problem?
1. Read the article.2. Write your thoughts.3. Begin your post with a Knowledge Issue (KI).4. See me or Mr. Jones if you need help with your KI.