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

Here are my arguments for why I disagree with the statement that the ecological crisis, e.g. climate change, should be focused on more than the economic crisis. First however, I would like to assert a few things. I do not disagree with the theory of global warming and I do not oppose taking actions. I am arguing that the economic crisis should take priority. Also, I will not be giving suggestions on how to address the economic crisis. For instance, stimulus bills, tax cuts, printing money, or any other actions a government may take to address an economic crisis. I will simply make the case that something along these lines should be done to address the economic crisis first. Lastly, while our economy is not necessarily good, the economic crisis is technically over so I will present my argument as being what should have been done in 2008 after the most recent economic crisis but as if that time was now. With that being said, my first point is that the timing of the economic crisis is very short in comparison to the longer ecological crisis. There is much more time to fix the ecological crisis and it takes longer to address while an economic recovery can be done very quickly. That is why it is possible to solve both problems but to do this, the economic crisis must be addressed first. By using the methods I stated earlier, a speedy recovery can be made which will alleviate the pain of the economic crisis, and by doing so, it will open the door for a more meaningful approach to address climate change. Using the following links, you will see that at the time of the economic crisis, government revenues dropped about as quickly as it's spending increased. Note how the revenue and spending changed around the time of the GDP changing. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... http://www.tradingeconomics.com... The significance of this is simple. The faster we fix the economic crisis, the faster revenue rises and spending goes down. With deficits down, there will be a greater willingness to spend additional funds on clean infrastructure, alternative energy, and investments in green technology research and development. This will be an even more efficient method of confronting climate change than in a slow recovery where the willingness to allocate additional funds to new green programs will not be present. A speedy recovery will quickly bring about this willingness and make a larger ecological impact in the long run. At the same time, as this article shows: http://m.nber.org... The economic costs of environmental regulations are significant, and for these to be put in place during an economic crisis would only exacerbate the problem. The positive impacts of these regulations are undeniable, but these should be implemented in a strong economy that is able to bear the burden of these regulations without jeapardizing our economy or economic recovery. That is why we should solve the economic problem first, because we can then move on to regulating the environment without causing a significant economic impact in a weak economy. With these things being said, I will conclude by stating that while it is important to address the ecological crisis, it would be more prudent to solve the economic crisis first, before moving on to the ecological crisis. There is a huge amount of time before the full effects of climate change are upon us, while the economic crisis is here now. It should take priority.