Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

Some ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot.American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment. When people can't affording plumbing their urine and feces end up in drinking water. When people are desperate, they don't care about the environment as much. The most polluted places are in the poorest places, and so poverty is bad for the environment. It takes money to invest in green energy. Every country is beginning to recognize the value of a clean environment for tourism, quality of life, health of their population, and efficiency. While it is true more money results in more consumption, we are getting better at producing products and energy in an environmentally sustainable way. Poor native Americans used to set fire to the prairie, running bison off cliffs, so they could eat a small portion of the meat. This is a good example of the bad affects of poverty on the environment. Poor people cook their meat with fire. That is much worse for the environment than natural gas, or electricity.Poor people burn garbage to keep warm releasing toxic chemicals into the environment. Nothing that happens to the environment matters, except to the extent that mankind is able to take ourselves and as much biodiversity off this planet with us, because the sun will burn out, and destroy all life on this planet. If we don't care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt. Perhaps we should spend a billion dollars a year preventing global warming, but the United States should not spend 100 trillion dollars a year. We don't have that much money. Even if we did, it isn't worth it. There are hundreds of very costly things we could piss our way around, that are not worth it. We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don't cost very much. There are many things that we can do to help the environment that don't cost very much. We should harvest some of the dead wood in the west, instead of letting in burn. It wouldn't cost much to bring elephants back to North America, and would be good for biodiversity. Outlawing buildings less than 2 stories could help the environment by reducing sprawl and wouldn't cost much. Mulching is a good use of resources Introducing pink flamingos to the Salt Lake would increase biodiversity and wouldn't cost much We should bring ostriches back to North America. It wouldn't cost anything to require homes to put most of their windows facing south, and this simple rule could improve home heating in the winter, and reduce heating in the summer, and could be often be done without wasting land. It cost less per mile to use electricity or natural gas.Green energy is a pretty good investment for our country, even if it has a 30 year pay-back, because we hope to have a country in 30 years. It doesn't have to cost more to plant a fruit tree than a decorative tree, but growing local fruits and vegetables is good for the environment. We can design cities so they are smarter without using more money. It doesn't cost much more to retain run-off water. It wouldn't cost much to replace a good portion of lawns with natural vegetation, and it could reduce labor, money spent on lawnmowers, time spent mowing the lawn, and would result in less pollution, as 2-cylinder motors are not very efficient. We should do a cost-benefit analysis for all expensive government programs. We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in. The fact that we don't do cost benefit analysis in government proves that politicians don't really care about making the world a better place, but would rather play stupid games, and be seen as increasing spending, without caring that any goal is actually met. It is a victory of symbolism over substance. Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideasOne EPA ozone regulation has been estimated to cost over 90 billion in new cost, and the loss of 7 million jobs. There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways. A strong America can prevent wars. Wars are bad for the environment. If American businesses are unsuccessful, american power will diminish, and the world will be less stable, and more likely to go to war. We should care more about the environment when our economy is healthy. Because the sun will burn out destroying all life on earth, we should ensure that the long term survival of our species is more important than the long term survival of plants or other animals, as we are the only life form that can take other life forms off the planet. We should seek for environmental balance, but not before we have vanquished those who would deny human rights. We can't spend 100% of our money on the environment, and 100% of our money on other priorities. We have to choose.