- 最后登录
- 2013-11-27
- 在线时间
- 974 小时
- 寄托币
- 3602
- 声望
- 335
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-12
- 阅读权限
- 35
- 帖子
- 31
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 2300
- UID
- 2664045
 
- 声望
- 335
- 寄托币
- 3602
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-12
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 31
|
发表于 2009-7-19 09:49:08
|显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 DriftKing 于 2009-7-21 21:25 编辑
Before talking about which side should government pay more attention, nature environment or economic development, I want to emphasize what is the government's primary responsibility at first, that is "develop our society sustainable". So I think both protect nature environment and economic development are important equally.
When coming to the topic about which problem should government spend more effort, the environmental preservation or economic development, I want to emphasize the importance of a balanced effort toward a sustainable development.
p4 ~! k+ z) R- C" Q
Consider we pay more attention on save natural situation and ignore some development on economic. Obviously, we can receive more fresh water, clean air, active animals, however, we should also meet the pressure of economic depression. At that situation, government can not got enough taxes from the society, and the company will reduce the salary for their employees or even cut down some workers to save the cost, these workers will have no resource for live, even the government have not enough ability to help them, these people can aggravate the pressure of our society and finally build a vicious circle and cause a series of social problems such as robbery, murder and so on. This situation will more and more serious if we still pay less attention on economic program, so we can not ignore the importance of economic development.9 O( \! A/ T; l7 O( V# V
On the one hand, if the government overemphasizes preserving the natural environment development and thus limits the economic development, we will suffer a lot from an lagging economy. Under that situation, government would not have enough tax revenue to cover the running cost, companies would cut down the payment for works and even lay off some to reduce the cost. Those laid off would experience a hard time as they could receive little from the burdened government. The unemployment crisis would further evolve into a vicious cycle and engender severe social problems such as robbery, murder.
t& U
On contrast, If we focus more on economic development what atmosphere we will live? There will be more factories than today, more emissions we will have which contain carbon dioxide in it. Greenhouse effect will be intensified which cause the situation we live in warmer and warmer than ever before. A lot of bad effects will follow, such as the sea level will hoist which cause the coastal land inundated in it, climate changes or we can only see the snow through TV in the future, less food we can eat, so more and more people will be threaten by not enough food. Is money also useful at that time, can we buy more region from sea, or buy snow from the sky or even buy food from the earth? We can not, so it is so terrible to underestimate the important of preserving nature environment. " Q# N$ B! Q& m) N! g5 P
on the other hand, if we completely focus on economic development and ignore our surrounding environment, the outcome can be even more disastrous. Just consider the green house effect as an example. Without coordinated efforts, it is likely that in the nearby future the coastal land would be inundated beneath the elevated sea level, the climate pattern was altered in such a large extent that it would endanger our agricultural production and production. Is it possible for us to buy food or a green sky with money? The answer is quite definite, so we can not bear to neglect the environment preservation.
|
|
|