akula,
I don't understand #3.
QUOTE: 3. An increase of emissions is required to to escape poverty more rapidly.
Why does it have to be this way? actually, I think that may very well be the main point.
If the asumption is that emissions standards create economic advantages, then what is the rational? Why does that necessarily hold true? How would reducing emissions hurt one's economy?
Bear in mind, cost benefit entails not just economic costs but opportunity and accounting costs as well.
EX: My old school (SMC) made quite a bit of money recycling waste on campus to supplement the school's budget.
EX: When I didn't have health insurance, I spent $3500 in hospital visits because something I should of went to the doctor for escalated tenfold and cost more. Since I defaulted on the hospital visits, the taxpayers picked up the bill (sorry guys). Now that I have health insurance, I get regular preventative care and haven't been to the hospital in over two years.
Also, because I get regular dental care, instead of waiting to the last minute and needing $1000s in oral surgery.
Preventative remedies do pay off in the long run. Having clean air and water will go a long way in reducing health care costs and other associated costs like damaged crops form acid rain, loss of top soil form over-fertilization (dustbowlers). Cost of clean up is way more than prevention.
|