Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Environment vs Democracy ?

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 22, 2012, 9:18 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here is an example :

What if an oil company was planning on building a oil line around the world , but the oil company says the costs will be high. And what if a group of qualified Environmentalist Scientists look over the plan and make requests for Environment safety, and these requests boost up the cost of the overall project .. by triple of what the oil company had projected.

Now, the public hears of all this and decides to vote on the matter through democracy. If they vote for the Environments suggested plan , the end result would increase fuel prices by triple of that of the alternative oil companys original plan.

So here is the question:

Should the power of Democracy have the power to over rule a carefully studied Scientific Environmental Decision ? (in the case where the voters were to go with the original companys plan to avoid high fuel prices)

Should the Health and Welfare of the Environment Over Rule Democracy ?

4 Comments

4 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 2 years ago

First of all, any system, democratic or not that doesn't preserve the environment is unsustainable so if we were to allow the people to vote and they chose to vote against the environment, assuming the information they receive is accurate then they would be voting for the suicide of their society, whether they admit it to themselves or not.

But the information that you provide in your hypothesis isn't necessarily accurate. We almost certainly don't have to spend so much to prevent the destruction of the environment; in fact in many cases we can save an enormous amount of money, even in the short term by protecting the environment, although there will be other portions that might cost more.

One of the biggest ways to save money by protecting the environment involves conservation and simply declining to buy things that don't serve a purpose. Another is energy efficiency. etc. Then there is the stand-by's wind and solar etc. These will produce savings that aren't always figured in like reduced health care cost due to reduction in pollution.

There are many things that shouldn't be controversial that we can get started on right away but the corporations own the media and they refuse to present accurate facts to make decisions.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

People are consumers. They are destructive anyway you put it. You cannot build without destruction. And our population is increasing exponentially.

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 2 years ago

I'm afraid you are wrong. Population growth is neutral in the western world. And most of the rest of the world.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

World population is almost at 7billion. It was at 6 billion in 99.

And yes some western nations are experiencing cyclical declines. I believe ours is too, but immigration negates it.

Overall the world population always goes up.