- We don't have to spend a lot of money or force businesses to spend lots of money to help the environment, .+22
- Some environmental regulations are not worth the cost that we pay for them. +1
- Some ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot. Poverty is bad for the environment. American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment.
- If we don't care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt.
- We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don't cost very much for the amount of benefit they produce. We should do a cost-benefit analysis for expensive government programs. Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideas
- There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways.
Reasons to disagree:
Number of reasons to:
Agree: 6
Disagree: -0
Agree with reasons to agree: 23
Disagree with reasons to agree: -0
Agree with reasons to disagree: -0
Disagree with reasons to disagree: +0
Total Idea Score: 29
Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change. Also help me brainstorm the following for each belief:
0 comments:
Post a Comment