For example, today, Alternative energy supplies “less than 7 percent of U.S. consumption.” This is only one first world country, imagine if every country became a first world country. That enormous demand for energy simply cannot be provided with today 's alternative solutions. For these reasons, opponents argue that it is more reliable to invest in discovering more oil rather than experimenting with expensive alternative solutions. Furthermore, the U.S. already has the means to efficiently process oil unlike new alternative solutions. Although it is a valid point that Fossil Fuels are easier to power America with due to years of experimentation, the environmental drawbacks out way the gain.
Another huge problem of the world are environment issues like global warming and pollution. There are ways to stop this. But some of the little steps people could do are out of reach for poor people. For instance, the difference of effects an LED light bulb and a regular bulb can do to the environment is huge. LED bulbs save energy and last longer, but has a price too high.
The most hardcore regulations are in Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, while the most laid back are in Greece and Ireland. The UK and USA are close to the OECD average. Internationally, policies everywhere have become more stringent since 1990. More relevant is that a new OECD study by researchers confirms earlier discoveries about the impact of individual policies, being “an increase in stringency of environmental policies does not harm productivity growth.” This finding is in stark contrast what most governments and industries seem to believe: that green laws may be justified by the necessity to save the planet, but impose immediate negative economic costs. On the contrary, idealistic green goals have shown to been pragmatic by benefitting the planet, society and the economy, and this quash initial fears about their
Fracking has as many benefits as it does cons. If you just look at the good side of this argument then you will understand where I’m coming from. Three of the top benefits of hydraulic fracturing are Increase in jobs, lower energy cost, & improved air quality. I think that fracking is very beneficial for those that live in the U.S. . The U.S. has enough natural gas inside of shales under North American land that could make the United States less dependent on other countries for oil and gas.
And although jobs come to the less developed nations, boosting the economies there, the environment suffers because the restrictions against pollution are less strict. Major companies such as Suncor and Syncrude have legal obligations with the government to restore the land that they are using to as close as they can to the natural state they found it. Sometimes these legal obligations are too expensive for companies to adhere to so they do not proceed with building the plant. This has a significant impact on environmental sustainability as well as sustainable prosperity of the people in that area or
Fracking is one of the best ways to get natural resources. “Fracking is a process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside” (Unknown). Adversaries of fracking will say that it is dangerous, use up our water supply, and poison our water supply, but that is not totally true, fracking will bring in more money, save money, and will make the air cleaner and safer. Fracking may seem unacceptable because of what people say about it, however, when they drill deep into the facts they will see that fracking is actually very beneficial. Fracking will bring in tons of money for all of the United States.
In my opinion, the environmental and economic implications of fracking can be divided into pro’s and con’s. The pro’s are the economic aspects which are lower fuel prices, employment and domestic business growth. The negative aspects are all environmental and consist of high water consumption, the use and deterioration of the infrastructure, carbon footprint, voc’s (emission), water resources being contaminated and seismic events. The economic benefits of lower fuel prices means American’s have more disposable income to travel, to buy more manufactured goods or to spend on entertainment, this is all a boost to local economies. The oil and gas companies are able to employ more workers and its estimated “by the year 2035 these companies will
Sweatshops don’t have the best wages and conditions but it is better than the people working at these dumps. It is true, that labor standards can improve wages and working conditions, without greatly affecting the eventual retail costs of goods. Kristof then argues back that this affects production costs that companies try to pare, and it results to factories closing down. People shouldn’t campaign against
I am really neutral on the issue. I know there are benefits to fracking for natural gas. It is better for the climate than fossil fuels, and it is cheaper. What I do not know is the extent of the damages it can potentially cause. It is a relatively new practice, and enough time has not passed to cause justification or condemnation.
Society has been impacted by the technology of hydroelectricity in many ways and one of which is economically. Comparing hydroelectricity to other energy processes, it is far less expensive and requires less supervision or support. The type of machinery that is used in the process, can save the processing plant a great deal of money and it allows profit making. These impacts are significant because now people can get electrical power with less money. In the end, there are still positive points of hydroelectricity that makes this technology a useful tool to the
Yes the companies can get involved but then somehow it will get corrupt and won’t benefit the citizens. Before anything the citizens need to know what’s wrong these major companies and why these aren 't and are being passed. Marijuana has major benefits and will do great in society. Many things for healthcare and our planet can benefit from