Why emphasize the phrase “economic growth” in discussions on the environment and national security? Why not just talk about “human activities?
In recent decades, many publications have warned of the environmental perils of “human activities.” These warnings have been based on important scientific findings, but they have had little effect on public policy. Why? Imagine walking through the policy arena, searching for a policy table where “human activities” are handled. Your search will be fruitless, and so are the warnings. To affect policy decisions, we will need to use language that points clearly to an established policy table. The biggest policy table in the domestic policy arena is devoted to economic growth. When we use the phrase “economic growth” to describe the overall threat to the environment and national security, the relevant policy table is unmistakable. To the extent we are effective, policy reforms to stabilize the size of the economy will follow, with an inevitable stabilizing effect on population, per-capita consumption, and “human activities.
Related Questions
- Why emphasize the phrase "economic growth" in discussions on the environment and national security? Why not just talk about "human activities?
- Why should we emphasize the phrase "economic growth" in discussions on the environment and national security?
- Why emphasize the phrase "economic growth" in discussions on the environment and national security?
