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

I made clear that my reason for not providing a suggested solution for the economic crisis is that that is another debate because there are so many options. However, it appears as if Pro would claim that my argument is invalid due to my not providing suggestions so I will elaborate more. There are numerous things the government and federal reserve can do to combat the effects of an economic crisis. First, a stimulus package of sorts that invests in infrastructure, education, AND some of the more minor environmental projects that can be put in place would make a positive impact on both crises while keeping the focus on the economic crisis. Second, governments can cut taxes in addition to stimulus in order to increase consumer spending. The Federal Reserve can do several things too. By keeping long term interest rates low, buying bonds in the process called quantitive easing, and lending to banks, the Fed can stimulate the credit market and get the economy going. http://onswipe.investopedia.com... These solutions have all been tried and have all shown some success. While there is debate over which of these to use, there are plenty of options that can be taken to promote growth. As for Pro's suggestion that growth must come by stimulating consumers. This is true of course, however, pro forgot to mention that all of the stimulus suggestions I made are designed to pump more money into the economy and into the wallets of consumers. Therefore, this argument is invalid. Pro stated that the reason that my arguments are invalid is that they are based on uncertainty. This is not true. My arguments are based on the truth that there are steps that can be taken to stimulate growth. Even in the slowest recovery, the economy would still recover before the ecological crisis is upon us, and so my argument is not invalid or based on uncertainty. There is uncertainty in a recovery, but this uncertainty is based on how fast the economy will recover, not whether or not it will. The uncertainty is also mainly based on which recovery strategy is best, not based on if a specific strategy will help. Whether a recovery is fast or slow, it will still be complete far before the ecological crisis is upon us. Because of this, I am baffled by pros suggestion that we should ignore the crisis that is already on us and instead focus on one that will not be fully felt for another half century or more. Yes, there are economically viable options that can and should be taken during a recovery, but these will not solve the entire problem. In order to fully solve the ecological crisis, there are many things that will have to be done including several things that would hinder a recovery. By solving the economic crisis using the methods I proposed, minor steps could be taken to fix the ecological crisis first, then when the economy is better, major actions must be taken to reverse the effects of climate change. This strategy allows us to fix both problems in a timely manner. It is not a smart strategy to solve a distant ecological crisis instead of an economic crisis that is already here. The quickest and best method would solve both and it would involve addressing the economic issue first, and then the ecological issue second. This strategy solves both problems and it is clearly the most efficient strategy that could be taken.