It is ironic to see the way the environmental agenda is pushed aside by nations pursuing economic growth for the betterment of society. Hong Kong’s overall air quality has worsened so much that researchers at the Hong Kong University have said that “local air pollution contributes to at least 2,000 premature deaths a year” This is not just the case in China but in every country from Mexico to India that has experienced economic prosperity. The future consequences of ignoring the environment could range from a tsunami to starvation. Money may provide comfort and luxury but life is more important than both those aspects. The value of protecting the environment cannot be overemphasized. It is time to take action and control the health risks and other dangers that threaten the destruction of the earth before the pursuit of economic prosperity.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Economic development and quality of life are directly, intimately related.
It is precisely economic and technological development that has dramatically increased your life expectancy, dramatically decreased the infant mortality rate, dramatically increased your access to healthcare, education, and to the skill and knowledge of others, guaranteed you'll live quite free from fear of crime, guaranteed basic human rights........
not to mention that no one can reasonably deny that it is modernity and progress that make it possible for several billion people to be alive, as opposed to perhaps a single billion in all the eras before our times.
The value of protecting the environment is vastly overshadowed by the necessity of uphoding human life.
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
But could it be that our focus on bettering our lives is having the opposite effect? Pollution is leading to premature deaths, thats a fact. And this pollution is coming from humans as we economically develop. It seems that a cycle is starting to form here, or at least a wave.
This sounds unreasonable to me to say. Really? Pollution has killed people? and that's a fact? Generally, it seems incorrect to me to speculate on the consequences of pollution, which you guys claim overwhelms us with every new thing produced---can you really accurately say that progress results in deaths, tsunamis, and starvation?? Are we sure that your examples aren't your simply finding the worst thing that is remotely, theoretically possible--precisely because it is the worst possible? What is the aim of being this hostile to 'progress', especially when as I argue in the other post, progress has so benefitted us?
If you guys were policymakers, would you enforce far-reaching and life-changing restrictions so people stop progressing, and even regress, because of wild speculation on its consequences?
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
The point was not that people should stop progressing. For example, cars save time and therefore, every new consumer wants a car. But cars are easily one of the biggest causes of pollution in the world since they release sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But cars have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere that global warming has now contributed to increasing sea levels over the past few years. As a result glaciers have melted and increased sea levels plus the volume of water is also increased by the heat. This expansion of the water bodies results in more powerful storms and a reduction in coastal land area as the waters begin to engulf them. Just by increasing fuel efficiency, harnessing solar and wind energy and using more energy efficient lighting, air-conditioning and heating would reduce the present rate of carbon dioxide emission by a lot! But society today is so obsessed with economic growth that it chooses to overlook the long term benefits of environmental protection for short term profits.
Awesome idea... But how do the developing economies afford your technology? Mandating it would just cause developement to slow, stop, or even backslide.