If only it were that simple, what if you have to boost industry so people could have jobs but this company is bp or a
Drilling company or uses sweat shops
OP, if you are in the US i believe you will find yourself at a political impass for voting. One of the two major US political parties believes the environment should be top priority and that ALL people should prosper, but they dont have an exacutable plan or even a working concept to achieve those goals. The other party believes that climate change will always happen and that enviromental impact from humanity should be minimized but is inevitable. They believe that 100% citizen prosperity is not possible because the system needs to hold individual people accountable for their own prosperity (people have to be allowed to fail in order to drive them toward self-prosperity). Basically you can vote for a promise of a perfect system and hope that they figure out a way to make it work that still allows all of the freedoms you want. Or you can vote for an imperfect system that was used to make the US the country of freedom and opportunity that it is today and accept that...
...th enviroment will have to change with the expansion of human population and that there will always be human hardship because its necessary to motivate people to do great things.
Im not sure if your joking or not. The Democratic party campaigns on pipe dreams with no reason or intent to get there. The Republican party has a realistic/ working concept based on small government and business growth.
Hm, in terms of the environment. I think the political parties currently in control in both Australia and the US don't really care about the environment or climate change, because if they did they would; firstly, stop creating nuclear weapons. Secondly, they would stop raping the land of the countries that they invade such as Iraq, or Vietnam where chemical weapons are still having children born deformed. And thirdly, they would stop investing in corporations which exploit people in developing countries and polluting earth with junk.
What if the most powerful country in the world genuinely cared about the environment, but in order to retain that power so that it could continue trying to improve the enviroment it needed to develop nucular wepons? Maybe a powerful army and economic sucess is needed in order to give the US the ability to save the enviroment? Look at Obama's 2008 campaign...he had promises of stopping us man power and $ being sent to overseas conflict. Now that he's running the show he understands that its necessary to stop the spread of terror at its source (strangely like ebola in African countries) the fact is that there is a lot okn play, and simply stopping something cold turkey will likely have resulting consequences.
Nuclear weapons are developed for war not to save the environment. You don't need a powerful army for environmental sustainability. The only reason America is in the Middle East right now is because it benefits them. They didn't need to go into Iraq in 2003 and affect generations of children with radiation and chemical weapons. Not to mention the land which will take hundreds of years to recover. That doesn't truly reflect a powerful country wanting to make climate change an international issue of importance.
Drilling company or uses sweat shops