It is argued that many environmental regulations are too costly. Do the economic effects of environmental public policy outweigh the costs?
Some policies have little or no direct monetary costs. These policies remove subsidies to special interests and restrict or deny access to national resources. Many environmental policies involve some very real costs that must be paid by some segment of society. In general, states with the strictest environmental regulations also had the highest rates of job growth and economic performance. Nations with the highest environmental standards also had the most robust economies and rates of job creation. Only 0.1% of job layoffs were attributed to employers to environment-related causes. In summary, we can draw several conclusions from our examination of the impact of environmental policy on the economy. Environmental public policy does not diminish the wealth of a nation; rather, it transfers wealth from polluters to pollution controllers and to less polluting companies. The environmental protection industry is a major job-creating, profit-making, sales-generating industry. The argument that environmental protection is bad for the economy is unsound. Not only is it good for the economy but environmental public policy is responsible for a less hazardous, healthier, and more enjoyable environment.
While this is certainly one view of environmental public policy, there are certainly rebuttals to this position, also based on notions of sound science and economic evidence.
Take a position on public policy, global sustainability, and global economics. Be able to support your position with evidence.
I am looking for ideas and opinions to get my thoughts flowing that is supported by research. Thank you.
Taking one position, this solution provides evidence for the debate on public policy, global sustainability, and global economics. Supplemented with highly informative two articles on the topic for further research.