HI 100 / WR 100 R. S. Deese Boston University Fall, 2009

Cast your vote NOW in BEST PARAGRAPH SMACKDOWN!!!

Friday, December 11, 2009

Josh Kraskin's choice for best paragraph

When it comes down to it, humans think in terms of economics, and always will think that way. It is nice to be optimistic like Rachel Carson, to think that humans will sacrifice production or wealth for the safety of the environment. But in reality, making this sort of sacrifice simply goes against human nature. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the needs that have to do with our safety such as financial security are far more important to us than moral needs such as protecting our environment. The only way that that we as a society would voluntarily give up wealth for the sake of the environment, is if everyone is the community were so economically well off that everyone volunteered to give away some of their disposable income towards this cause. Unfortunately in a capitalistic society, this case is so unrealistic, it could be classified as impossible. Instead of relying on individuals to save our environment, the government could step in. Pollution is a negative externality caused by the way that we produce goods. People do not notice it, because it does not directly affect them. If the government were to put higher taxes on natural resources such as gas and oil, it would in effect internalize the externality, making consumers and companies pay for their use of pollutants and natural resources. For example, if the government were to double the current tax rate on gasoline, the economic benefit of driving a car would decrease. The “invisible hand” of the market would make people search for an alternative mode of transportation, one that was economically friendly and tax free. This trend occurred just over a year ago, when gas prices were reaching all time highs, and people were opting to buy more fuel efficient cars, or use fuel free modes of transport such as biking and even walking. The government could also raise corporate taxes on pollutants. Once taxes reached a high enough level, it would become more economically profitable to switch to a greener mode of production. Only then will corporations stop polluting. If governments worldwide are willing to take these steps, than the future on earth will be green indeed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search This Blog

Followers

By 2050, the world will:

"Science is not a process of discovering the ultimate truths of nature, but a social construction that changes over time." Carolyn Merchant. Radical Ecology (Routledge, 1992) pg. 236

"Money, which represents the prose of life, and which is hardly spoken of in parlors without an apology, is, in its effects and laws, as beautiful as roses." Emerson

RATE IT: "Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end. . ." Henry David Thoreau

RATE IT: “Once a new technology rolls over you, if you're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road.” Stewart Brand