After the impact BP's oil disaster had on local economy in the Gulf of Mexico, I would say environmental protections safeguard the economy.
Profitability and environmental protection are both crucial, but their importance can depend on context. In the long term, prioritizing environmental protection can lead to sustainable profitability by ensuring resources remain available and reducing the risks associated with climate change. Balancing both is essential for a resilient economy and a healthy planet, as neglecting one can ultimately undermine the other. Therefore, a synergistic approach that integrates both profitability and environmental responsibility is often the most effective strategy.
The most divisive argument between environmentalists and industry is which is more important. If the environment is destroyed, it could put human lives in danger, then there would be no reason for industry.
Never!
It really depends.
Energy Star is a program developed by US Environmental Protection Agency to distinguish and promote products that are more energy efficient. This doesn't mean that a product is a better quality, but it is 10 to 20% more energy efficient than non-Energy-Star products.
If "Nation A" has stricter laws for environmental protection than "Nation B" and if these laws restric the ability of "Nation B" to to export its goods to "Nation A", then by the policy of WTO and the EU nation A's environmental protection laws could be oerruled in the name of free trade.
Yes, Mining is
to prove one to best than another
Slavery was more important to the South than it was to the North, because the South's economy relied on agriculture.
The current environmental degradation is the cause of fish's death =]
No- nowhere near that important- surely less than one percent.
equality is more important than efficiency. Is that a positive or normative statement?