Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.


In times of crises the government must shift their priority to the immediate needs of the country. When environmental concerns devastate a country and people’s safety and health are at risk than the government must take appropriate action to mitigate the situation. For example, when Deepwater Horizon rig exploded triggering the vast oil spill near Gulf of Mexico this led to the poisoning of wildlife & destruction of livelihood leaving many jobs at stake such as those involved with the fishing industry. As a means of mitigating the situation, BP’s underwater robots placed a containment cap over the leak, diverting 15,000 gallons of oil a day that would have otherwise bled away. Thus, due to the extent at which this oil catastrophe has imparted on the thousands of families that depend on primary resources such as the fishing industry, and its effect on wildlife, the government must take action to contain the problem. Furthermore, such an event has prevented further trade with countries such as Mexico leading to economic setbacks and leaving fisherman to relocate or find temporary jobs until the oil spill is fully contained. In addition to the devastating effects in the fishing industry, tourism to areas around the Gulf has also declined causing further job losses further weakening the economy. Obama’s government has forced the BP to set aside millions of dollars to help contain the oil spill but also compensate the fisherman that depend on such livelihood.

Nevertheless, when millions of jobs across the country are at stake, including thousands of corporations and businesses involved in international affairs, economic concerns must take precedence in such instances. For example, in response to the global financial market crises, Obama assuming office signed the economic stimulus legislation as a means of saving businesses from becoming bankrupt and salvaging the millions of people left jobless due to the recession. As a means of protecting the millions of people devastated by such economic turmoil, the government took immediate action as a means of mitigating the crisis at hand. Thus, by protecting jobs and giving out loans to large companies such as Ford that went bankrupt, the government is justified in responding to economic concerns in order to help the millions of families being affected.

Thus, in cases of immediate action where an unavoidable problem such as the oil crises ensues, the government must adhere to protecting its citizens at stake that involve their health and safety. Nevertheless, when millions of people are left jobless, such as during the global economic crises, the government is justified in diverting its attention to its country’s economic concerns over environmental concerns. Such needs during an economic downturn take precedence over an environmental concern when a larger proportion of the population is being affected. Therefore, the government can be justified in placing more importance when its entire country is at risk as during an economic downfall as oppose to a more localized effect in case of an environmental concern.

Presently, issues concerning the environment and the economy are on the rise. Conferences on climate change and debates on how to fix the economy are the themes of the day. However, the environment must take precedent over the economy. The issue of precedence can be efficiently determined through the performance of a cost-benefit analysis. In most cases, solutions to the most pressing environmental concerns will indirectly or directly impact the economy in a positive way. This cannot be said about solutions offered for economic problems which, more often than not, impact the environment in a negative manner. Economic concerns should only take precedent over environmental issues when the benefits to society and the environment outweigh the costs.

Solving an environmental problem not only improves the conditions in which people live, but can also improve the means by which people live. An effort to keep the oceans, rivers and lakes free from pollution and other toxic hazards will ensure that fragile aquatic ecosystems are kept in check. The protection of these ecosystems means that those whose livelihoods depend on the numbers of salmon, cod, shrimp etc. are also protected. If the fish die, then the death of the fishing industry and the many communities that are anchored by it will soon follow. Therefore, not only will the environment suffer, but so will the economy.In the case of restoring a park in an urban city, the economic costs incurred could outweigh the benefits offered by the park to the community. Hence, the decision to bypass the restoration of the park, in favour of a community program that will bring money into the economy in the longterm, is feasible.


Weighing the costs versus the benefits is a simple way to decide whether the environment or the economy comes first. Of course there are a multitude of other factors to consider, but a cost benefit analysis offers an efficient method of decision making. The economy and the environment are linked, and in most cases, the benefits of improving the environment are shared by the economy either directly or indirectly.Therefore, focusing on environmental concerns offers the most benefits on a long term basis.

Environmental issues over land, water, and air quality along with fluctuating economies have become increasingly apparent as humans have learned about how their daily lives play an important role in both topics. Many issues effect both the environment and economy, but sustaining our environment for future generations has always taken a higher priority than economical concern. In April 2010, British Petroleum (BP) was trying to drill and extract oil from the Gulf of Mexico, when a leak caused 700 Litres of oil to spill into the gulf before finally being plugged after 85 days. As a result of the oil, many ecological habitats and residential properties were destroyed due to the vast amount of oil that was spilt. The primary reason for the deep sea drilling was to collect oil that could be sold for fuel in the United States. The response from the United States government when the leak began was to terminate all deep ocean drilling for the current time, to prevent another leakage, even though this would result in higher oil prices, which would effect the United States economy. The protection of the environment was more important than the increase in oil prices.
While Environmental concerns can have priority over economical concerns, there are many situations in which economical issues are more important than environmental issues. The European Financial crisis of 2010 is a situation that saw many European Union countries such as Greece and Spain in extreme recession. In times of recession there is little money to be spent on environmental issues, as the primary goal is to eliminate the recession. Government spending is cut, Taxes are raised and the bank rate is dropped all in an attempt to eliminate the current recession. Once the countries have dealt with the economical impact of the recession and their economy grows, the government will have more money to spend and can focus on benefits to the society such as environmental issues.
When deciding when environmental issues have a greater priority than economical issues, the effect on the environment is the ultimate deciding factor. If the environment will be negatively effected with the outcome, as in the BP case, than environmental issues always take the highest priority. If the environment can be positively effected by a situation, such as eliminating a financial crisis that will lead to more spending by the government, then economical impact is of higher priority than immediate environmental impact.

Here today gone tomorrow; this is the current situation facing the world’s environment. Man kind has left its mark on this planet; burning fossil fuels into the air, polluting the land with waste and dumping oil into the oceans. Eventually all of this damage will take its toll on mother earth and what will human kind be left with? Absolutely, nothing. When considering what issues should take precedent in today’s society, commonly people will say the economy, health care or human rights. While these are all valid issues that need to be addressed, none of these issues would be of concern if we did not have an environment to live in. On April 20, 2010 an oil rig from the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico just off the shore of the United States. Oil from the ocean floor has been leaking out into the water causing great concern. Scientists have estimated that over sixty thousand barrels of oil are being released into the Gulf every day. Surely, all of this oil cannot be good for our environment. Wildlife, most noticeably oceanic birds smothered in oil, has been greatly affected by this tragedy. The fishing and tourist industries in Florida and Alabama have also suffered. Many have speculated that the oil spill could potentially affect American health predominantly through the consumption of tainted fish. The noticeable affects are vast in number but with the potential to cause even more issues in the future economic concerns should be put aside and environmental issues should take precedence. President Obama has noticed that the oil spill is of great concern and has focused government efforts into resolving the problem. Before the oil spill, President Obama expressed the desire to expand on offshore drilling sites in the United States because of the potential economic gains associated with it. In light of the oil spill, President Obama has put potentially prosperous economic gains aside and has taken preventative measures delaying any offshore drillings for at least six months. The urgency of this environmental issue and all of the possible negative affects it can have on the lives of American's and the environment have delayed economic considerations in the hopes of a resolution.

There are always environmental concerns that governments and citizens should be concerned about. However, when no major environmental disasters have occurred and large riots are occurring in a country due to a nation’s economic instability, economic considerations should take precedence over environmental ones. Currently Greece is under going an economic crisis. National debt in the past several years has piled up over and has led to one of the worst recessions faced by this country in history. Many citizens of Greece have lost their jobs and their homes. In April and May of this year large riots took place on the streets of Athens. Protestors torched government buildings due to their discontent with the way their government is handling the situation. If the government does not take action in combating this recession not only will their economy suffer but the lives of its citizens will suffer as well. It is not justifiable for the government of Greece to consider environmental issues of great concern when their economy is crumbling right before their very eyes.

When faced with major natural disasters government should be focused on addressing environmental issues and place economic concerns aside. As demonstrated by the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, this environmental concern can spill over and affect human health, national industry and in turn the economy. However, when a nation is not faced with any sort of major environmental concern to deal with economic consideration should take precedence. This is especially true when a nation's economy is struggling to survive and as a result has led to national turmoil. The current economic crisis in Greece has left its citizens wondering about the future of their nation. The uncertainty and instability of the economy has should be the main focus of a nation when faced with an economic crisis.

Melting polar icecaps, increasing average global temperature, acid rain and depleting ozone layer are just some of the myriad of environmental scares that our world faces today. Environmentalism has grown from a minor grassroots campaign into a global initiative in which consumers worldwide have placed environmental awareness at a much higher priority than economic and financial stability.

The most notable example of environmental precedence over economic importance is in the automotive industry. The introduction of the first, commercially available hybrid car by Toyota Motor Company (TMC) marked the tipping point of the balance between environment and economy. The depleting oil reserves along with the continual increase in carbon dioxide emissions promoted automotive researchers worldwide to create a more fuel efficient vehicle, despite the increased costs of production, research and marketing. Likewise, consumers were persuaded to purchase hybrid cars despite their high cost of purchase, high maintenance costs and general economic inefficiency. Despite all this, the sales of hybrid cars has grow by approximately 500% since their inception into the automotive market according to TMC annual balance sheets. This staggering increase in sales shows how the concept of environmentalism took priority over economic interests.

While environmental awareness has exponentially grown over the past century, the economy has been a strong driving force that has dictated the actions of consumers worldwide. There are instances in which economics takes priority over all other measures including the environment. The North American/Global economic recession beginning in 2007 demonstrates when economic activity vastly overwhelms environmental concerns. The Canadian stock market crash in December 2007, when the Toronto Stock Exchange plummeted an astonishing 700 points over one day, marked the turning point in which officials nationwide urged industries to increase production in order to stimulate economic activity by any means necessary. Even though the average carbon emissions over the past two years have been the highest in over 30 years, people have not minded this so long as the economy returns to a stable and less troublesome level.

The struggle between economic interests and environmentalism has been longstanding and is difficult to resolve. Nonetheless, history has shown that there are guidelines that determine when environmentalism prevails over the economy. Environmental interests remain at a priority as long as the global economy is at a relatively stable and low-priority state. This is demonstrated by the inception of the hybrid car as a result of depleting natural resource. However, if the nation's current economy is in a state of turmoil, economic interests take priority over environmental importance until economic activity returns to a manageable level.

In our money and power driven society it is often too easy for large scale buisnesses to ignore their impact on the environment, not realizing the major impact this could have on them along the way. However, it is the impact an economy will have on its environment that should be considered in order to ensure a stable economic future. While the first settlers were coming into Canada and the United States a large economic draw was the sale of animal pelts. In paticular Bison were in large demand. These animals were nearly hunted to extinction in the name of large economic gain. In reality there is no economic gain in running out of a material that cannot be used by future generations, such as bison pelts. Thus often time environmental concerns should often be taken into acount when planning the future of an economy to ensure future success.

There are times when the economy should be given priorety over the environment aswell. The cutting of trees in the lumber industry is destructable to the environment, yet is a necissary for economic success. It has been said that an area of forest the size of texas is cut down every day in the world. This may seems like alot however, forests are a renewable resource and with time will grow back. Not to mention the millions of jobs, and the billions if not trillions of dollars pumped into the world economy every year from the forestry industry. As long as the rate of cutting does not outweigh the rate of growth, then this form of economic progress should take priority over the environment.

Economic priority should be concerened with what is best for the furture of the economy. If economic impacts are destructive to the environment, so much so, that they might limit our resources and therefor economic options in the future, then environmental concerns should take precidence. However if the gain in the economy can be made without limiting our economic future the the econemy should be concidered more important.

In todays world, natural resources are considered by some to be a primary component of a strong national economy. The ability of a nation to extract and utilize it's resources allows for an increase in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is used by many economists to measure the profitability of a nations economy. When deciding where and how to extract a countries resources, there are instances when irreprable damage to the environment cannot be avoided. It is during these times that environmental concerns must take priority over the possible economic gains. The current gulf oil crisis is a perfect example of one such instance. Investigations into the crisis has turned up evidence that both safety and environmental policies were circumvented in order to speed up completion of the well in order to increase profitability. Looking back on these actions, one cant help but suggest that if the impact of the spill on the environement would have been properly accounted for, neither the american government, nor BP would have continued on their course. The cost of marine life to the american economy will be felt for generations, let alone the direct financial costs to BP for the cleanup. Placing the protection of the environment ahead of profitability, would have allowed this crisis to have never taken place.

As with any resource, there may be times when the environmental damage due to the extraction of oil and gas can be managed withing acceptable levels. Take the oil sands of northern alberta for example. Present research into the use of steam assisted gravity drainage currently taking place at the University of Alberta, has shown that the impact to the environment can be acceptably minimized while still allowing for the extraction of oil. Even more research is being conducted of water recovery techniques and ways to isolate steam shafts from the water table. When research shows repeatedly that environmental concerns although valid, are minimal in comparison to the economic gains, it can be seen as an overall profitable venture.

However when arguing for or against the extraction of resources and damaging the environment, it would be unacceptable to disclude the many unseen varaibles encountered. Ventrures into unchartered territories prove to reveal challenges that would have otherwise been unforseen. Research is currently exposing new chemicals and compounds otherwise found not to exist. In order to properly asses a situation, one must be able to weigh both the economy and environment equally, and be able to choose either side, while living with the consequences.

Score: 1.5/6

-Good intro
-You can't make claims like "However, the environment must take precedent over the economy," because you are going to refute this in the next paragraph. You must qualify when the environment takes priority or say that is often takes priority. Something to soften the point.
-In the first paragraph you are expected to support the prompt only. Do not discuss the other tasks in the first paragraph. Also, you must give an example to support the prompt. Look back to the writing sample manual on how the paragraphs should be set up. You have similar problems in the second paragraph
-You need to use more specific examples to strengthen your essay.
-Your resolution principle must detail when each factor should be given priority. You cannot say do a cost-benefit analysis. This is too vague. Further, you are not suppose to give an answer like "focusing on environmental concerns offers the most benefits on a long term basis." You just need to state when each side is given priority.

Score 3/6

-When paraphrasing the prompt, don't use absolute terms because you will have to contradict yourself in the next paragraph.
-As a side note, almost 700 million liters of oil have been spilt. Be careful when you list details as getting them wrong weakens your argument.
-Good refuting paragraph.
-Main problem is with your resolution. The entire prompt is based around prioritizing the economy or the environment. You are not actually describing a situation in which the economy is prioritized if you are still thinking of the environment fire and foremost.

Score: 3.5/6

-Good intro
-Remember to use neutral language.
-BP is a good example, but try to explain it more concisely. You raise a lot of good points, but yo have too many points... it gets confusing.
-Good refuting paragraph. However, your example is largely hearsay... Greece is in economic turmoil, yes. But the extent that they are focusing on the economy over the environment is largely speculation, although I am sure it is true. Your example works, it just isn't the strongest.
-Your resolution principle is ok. I get what you are trying to say, it just isn't worded very well.