Should the Environment Regulate Economic Development.
The Environment should take precedence over economic development. Some people might say that economic development and a strong economy is more important than protecting the environment. They look for a capital profit before thinking how there actions effect the environment. So far economic growth has taken little account to of the environment. Capitalism has left us with a world where corporations own the environment, where the quest for capital profit has left us with a long-term environmental problem. As a result, the economy has grown and the environment has shrunk. The environment is precious and once it is destroyed there will be no turning back. Deforestation is one of the problems; the earth without forests is a picture that most people presently could not imagine. "The value of a forest is higher when it is left standing than it could be worth when it is harvested."#
" 8 000 years ago, the earth was covered by approximately 14.8 billion acres of forests. The worlds forest area has now shrunk to 8.6 billion acres as a consequence of human exploitation most of which occurred in the last 50 years."# Another long-term problem of economic development is water pollution. "Pollutants from industrial sources may pour out from the outfall pipes of factories or may leak from pipelines and underground storage tanks."# Companies should find new and better ways of producing goods so not to impact the environments as much. They should adopt a triple bottom line policy, "social responsibility, environmental responsibility, as well as profits."#
"We are loosing 33.8 million acres of tropical forests per year, more than the total area of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware combine. That is 2.8 million acres per month, 93 000 acres per day,