The ecological crisis should be more focused on than the economic crisis.

On the topic of not underestimating the ecological crisis in comparison with the economic crisis.Firstly, I would like to point out the length of the ecological cris in comparison with the economic crisis. The existence of the ecological crisis is, ofcourse, commonly known. The latter applies to the economic crisis as well. Though, there is a significant difference in first noticeable negative change. The economic crisis started in the autumn of 2008 with the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers. The ecological crisis however is noticed much earlier. Being first of all initiated by the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, the rise of Co2 in the atmosphere started rising, without stopping. (Note 1)In the following graph, the correlation between the rise in Co2 density and temperature rise can clearly be seen. This correlation is one of the fundamental dangers of the global warming. As recently pointed out by the IPCC (Note 3), the International Panel on Climate Change, this temperature rise is irreversibly caused by the human kind: 'Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. ' (Note 4). (Note 2)To conclude, the ecological and economic crisis are evenly proven. Though, the ecological crisis is a much longer lingering problem, and should thus deserve more attention, concerning the more advanced stage the problem is in.Secondly, I'll mention the characteristics of the effects of both crises. When taking a look at the history, economic crises are common. Observe that the economic crises were always contested and overcome. This could be explained by the general incentive to develop a more sustainable economy. A period of welfare often follows upon an economic crisis, and vice versa. The traits of these cycle always differ, but are there. (Note 5)Notice that climate change is irreversible as stated in the IPCC document: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased. ' (Note 4)This difference in the effects of the ecological and an economic crisis should be thoroughly considered when debating about this topic.Lastly, I would like to direct Con's attention to the following graph, where global economic growth of the past 2000 years. When you compare this graph with the former graphs, there is an obvious relation. The rise in economic welfare matches the trend in the earlier graphs. This indicates that the world financially corresponds with it's climate change. This correspondence can be explained by the general increase in world population, a result of the economic development, or for example by the rise in frequency of economic activity. Acknowledging that the ecological crisis is a forthcoming effect of the economical situation, one should always take the ecological status in mind when evaluating future development of the local or world economy. This implies that the ecological crisis should be considered when talking about the economic crisis. When combined with my first and second argument, my point that the ecological crisis should be higher prioritised than the economic crisis is logical. (Note 6)1. http://www.bbc.co.uk...2. http://solar-center.stanford.edu...3. http://www.climatechange2013.org...4. http://www.ipcc.ch...5. http://econ.economicshelp.org...6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...