Filed under: Business + Politics, Society + Media | Tags: economics, govenrment, money, policy, spending, subsidy
What’s worse than a bad environment? A bad environmental policy.
Between subsidizing oil and commercial farming, to this nations devotion to ethanol, we have made some major mistakes in how we spend tax dollars in the name of a clean environment.
By now most people know about the side effects of growing too much corn for fuel instead of food. And if they don’t know, they’ve seen them in the price increase at the grocery store or around the bar.
But, do we know the side effects of over subsidizing select parts of the economy? Do we understand that our tax and subsidy policy has everything to do with our clean environment or our lack thereof?
Hardly. And it’s obvious when we look at this nations attitude toward the public sector subsidizing (the new word is “bailing out”) the private sector.
We are so use to spending money as the end all be all. But we have spent a lot of money in this country and look at the results — a crippled economy, a dollar that has lost over 90 percent of its value and little to no actual wealth.
We need to seriously consider how we spend money on the environment and what role money has in its regulation or protection. We need to understand the economy is the human extension of ecology — money flowing through our economy is symbolically the same as energy flowing through our ecosystem. Money like energy can be wasted. Money like energy is being wasted. Is it really a coincidence that the color of the environmental movement is the color of money?
Better question: If I spent $100 on the environment, would the government give me any change I could believe in?
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment