What is the advantage and disadvantage of environmental pollution concerning politics, durable society and globalization?

I’m not sure I understand your question, although I have wisdom to impart on environmental pollution…

Can we see what the teacher asked, exactly?

I’d fail that essay.

Eh?

“Durable society”???

@dpworkin Uhm, sure I can try to let you see what the teacher asked. I might not have written everything correctly what the teacher asked because we use the Dutch school system so every assignment is written in Dutch.

The assignment(translated from Dutch to English):
In this task you write an essay/paper concerning a subject which is related to Politics, Durable Society/Sustainable society & Globalisation. In this essay/paper you indicate specifically what the causes and impact are according to scientists to what you have chosen as your subject and what are(possibly be) the advantages and disadvantages.

And the subject we(my partner that’s working on this project with me) have chosen is called “Milieuvervuiling” which means Environmental Pollution in English.

@lilikoi I meant Sustainable Society, I translated “Duurzame Samenleving” and the literal translation was “Durable society” but in English it’s actually Sustainable Society.

I don’t see any advantages to environmental pollution – it is a by-product of an inefficient, short-sighted system that needs to be refined.

O.K. – the fact that it is a translation makes it a bit clearer now. The topic still seems very broad and unwieldy and the policy at Fluther is that we don’t usually help with homework. However, if you were a student I was working with, I would suggest that you might want to narrow it down by focusing on one country – perhaps a developing one or newly modern one like China – and look at issues of rapid industrial development versus environmental harm. If you were to focus on Africa you might want to look at sustainable agricultural practices as oposed to environmentally harmful ones. If you want to deal with the United States, you could talk about factory farms, the harm they do to the land and the environment, and the politics of subsidies for farmers. By biting off a more manageable chunk of the issues, you should be able to come with some workable data and conclusions. I would check with your teacher before doing any further work and see if this is the approach you should be using.

Homework or test?
Oh wait, @dpworkin beat me to it.

As a government, I would offer incentives for recycling in both the private and business sectors, rather than force everyone to pay more taxes. I would encourage free enterprise to create a pollution-eliminating, pollution-conscious infrastructure to make recycling and cleaning a routine part of life (the government would not dump thousands of barrels of toxic waste into the ocean to let the salt water eat away at them, for instance).

I would develop trade agreements with countries who had resources toward that end, possibly going as far to enact embargoes to countries whose pollution affected other countries to such an extent as to be a “significant detriment” to people, wildlife, and other countries.

I would have farmers rotate crops so that the soil sustained itself. Composting (including certain paper products) would be a source everybody could contribute to, and draw from. Farmers with livestock would not be assessed additional methane taxes, but would instead be given tax breaks thier first few years in business, until crop farmers and animal farmers could rely more on trade with each other, rather than having the life sucked out of them by government taxation.

The country would be structured not only around replenishing each other by shared and recycled resources, but also by building in such a way that as many people as possible would benefit. Think of it as country-wide profit sharing. Natural resources (wind, sun, water, etc.) would be used as power sources as much as possible.

These ideas are not in-depth, but are intended as inspiration. I didn’t give you enough information to copy and paste, but included enough ideas that you could research and add your own. Since I am not sure what your teacher has in mind, you can take these thoughts and construct what your teacher wants out of them. Good luck :)

It is simple economics.

Polluting is easy and cheap
Not polluting is costly and detrimental in a competitive global economy.

The US is/was one of the leading modern societies and got that way on cheap available oil and other forms of energy and raw materials that were easily obtained and processed but caused enormous amounts of pollution. We have done that for over a hundred years which again gave us an enormous advantage over other emerging countries economies.

As of late the US has developed a conscious saddled by a green movement towards a cleaner healthier environment. This does not come without a price. Meanwhile the rest of the world playing catch up to the US is developing their own sources of energy and raw materials in the same way we did long ago but all of a sudden arrogant USA says not so fast you are polluting our planet with greenhouse emissions doing what you are doing. They tell the US to FUCK OFF and continue to pollute the planet getting their fair share of cheap fuels and raw materials.

So currently the US is at severe economic disadvantage as our materials and energy are coming to us at a much higher cost than say China, India, Russia or even Iran. Other countries are thumbing their nose at big bad US who is caught up in it’s crusade to stop green house gases and paying a much higher price to get their raw materials and energy while our international trade partners are sticking to us big time.

Environmental Pollution 101 class is over…please register for EP 102 starting April 1st.

”......saddled by a green movement….”
Don’t you mean, by a greed movement, enacted by the few who have specifically placed themselves into position to corner the lion’s share of the green market?
GA, dude. Heheheh :)

Sorry dear…typo! ;))