Climate change has been at the forefront of many peoples’ minds the past couple of years. In Western America, specifically California, because of climate change wildfires have taken a toll on the environment, damaging millions of acres of forests while also increasing a threat to the state's water supply. “The water supply for many communities, including large cities, starts in mountains and national forests. In California, about 70% of the water either starts or flows through national forests, according to Forest Service estimates.” With a serious threat to a state's water supply action needed to be taken that's why “Two years ago, the nonprofit Blue Forest Conservation organization launched the first-ever Forest Resilience Bond at $4 million”. While the return on the investment is seen as low, about 4% versus roughly 10% average return on stocks, I see this as a necessary investment because if we are not careful water in America could become scarce.
Companies have just now become interested in investing, “In the technology sector, for instance, many data centers, which need water to cool the banks of computers running inside, are in water-stressed areas. For other product manufacturers, water is crucial to every aspect of the process.” Is it acceptable to solely invest to help save the forests just because the forest burning derails business operations? Should the government implement a higher tax in order to help restore these forests? America has one of the lowest tax rates of highly developed countries, one major department our taxes go to is towards Medicare and Medicaid. We put so much money into health programs and neglecting environmental programs, but as seen in this article if people neglect environmental problems too much we may lose access to clean drinking water. More money needs to be allocated to help areas that have been affected by wildfires and to help prevent future wildfires for the safety of the people.
2 comments:
In my opinion, this is an excellent example of the trade-offs that the market has to choose between economic growth and viability. Also, I resonate with the statement that it is rather not efficient that the U.S. put much money into health programs while ignoring environmental problems, as environmental problems are often the cause of people's health problems. It would make more sense to solve a problem from its roots.
With more natural disasters like wildfires, resilient infrastructure is increasingly important. Sadly, it has taken tangible events like the current wildfires along the west coast of the United States for business and government leaders to step up and take the correct set of actions. Ultimately the inaction will affect less fortunate families that will have to face tough decisions in the near future to protect their own interests against climate change.
Post a Comment