The environment is very essential to humans. Society uses the environment for shelter, food, jobs and more. Everything needed to survive involves the environment yet, majority of America continues to destroy it. The public is educated but to improve the environmental problem a realistic change is needed. Many believe the law can resolve the issue, which to an extent is true. The answer to this conflict is not the law. It should not be required to take specific precautions to better the environment. Allowing the law to manage the environmental issues will only generate more conflict. These problems can and should be resolved willingly by Americans. Society is the leading cause of the environmental issues; the government can be the solution
…show more content…
The economy and the environment support one another. Stated in an article written by Patrick O’Driscoll and Elizabeth Weise, “Most people are wary of any government effort to protect the environment by imposing restriction on how they live, work or get around” (391).” Agreed, if the government was to force restrictions on the protection of the environment, many would suffer rather than gain. Limiting what the people can and cannot do to help the environment would not be helping the people economically. For example, people would not be able to not make as much of a profit off their goods because the government has limited the amount of produce or merchandise allowed to be grown or transported. Making them economically unstable. Another example may be the government limiting transportation. People not being able to drive the cars they already purchased because the brand of car burns fuel to quickly or releases too much carbon monoxide. That is not fair and creates conflict with economics. The solution to these issues are American themselves. Allowing them to become educated and willingly fix the issue on their own I the best …show more content…
“In the USA Today poll, Americans showed a willingness to spend more money to help the environment” (391). If Americans are showing this effort on their own, why do it to for them? “San Francisco has already vowed to go waste free by 2020” (369). The Americans are statically showing improvement. In the future, these restrictions will make the people begin to rebel. In the article “Green Living Takes Root But Old Habits Die Hard” written by Patrick O’Driscoll and Elizabeth Weise they state “they wouldn’t want a surcharge added to their utility bill” (391). Assuming these citizens don’t want surcharge added to their bills, individuals would not want money taken out of their taxes either. Allowing the government to control environmental issues would just put all decisions out of the publics control. The laws would be forced to be broken, increasing crime rate. Relating back to economy issues this would arise. For Americans to become as economically stable as they wish, they would have to bend and break the rules that the law has established to be successful. Crime rate increasing would also conflict economic issues in the aspect of jail or prison. The Americans would be the ones suffering from this issue in result of paying
The economy and the environment support one another. Stated in an article written by Patrick O’Driscoll and Elizabeth Weise, “Most people are wary of any government effort to protect the environment by imposing restriction on how they live, work or get around” (391).” Agreed, if the government was to force restrictions on the protection of the environment, many would suffer rather than gain. Limiting what the people can and cannot do to help the environment would not be helping the people economically. For example, people would not be able to not make as much of a profit off their goods because the government has limited the amount of produce or merchandise allowed to be grown or transported. Making them economically unstable. Another example may be the government limiting transportation. People not being able to drive the cars they already purchased because the brand of car burns fuel to quickly or releases too much carbon monoxide. That is not fair and creates conflict with economics. The solution to these issues are American themselves. Allowing them to become educated and willingly fix the issue on their own I the best …show more content…
“In the USA Today poll, Americans showed a willingness to spend more money to help the environment” (391). If Americans are showing this effort on their own, why do it to for them? “San Francisco has already vowed to go waste free by 2020” (369). The Americans are statically showing improvement. In the future, these restrictions will make the people begin to rebel. In the article “Green Living Takes Root But Old Habits Die Hard” written by Patrick O’Driscoll and Elizabeth Weise they state “they wouldn’t want a surcharge added to their utility bill” (391). Assuming these citizens don’t want surcharge added to their bills, individuals would not want money taken out of their taxes either. Allowing the government to control environmental issues would just put all decisions out of the publics control. The laws would be forced to be broken, increasing crime rate. Relating back to economy issues this would arise. For Americans to become as economically stable as they wish, they would have to bend and break the rules that the law has established to be successful. Crime rate increasing would also conflict economic issues in the aspect of jail or prison. The Americans would be the ones suffering from this issue in result of paying