Anstine 1

Jack Anstine
Block 6
5/13/15
Green Living DBQ

Todays society is filled with advocates for green living. It is widely believed that if a
complete switch was made to clean energy sources, then the environmental crisis would no
longer be an issue. Although it may appear that requiring all citizens to conserve natural
resources will solve the environmental issues we face today, in reality this is not the case.
Government enforcement of green living is not an option because it would harm the economy,
there are better alternatives, and because it is better that going green continues as a trend than a
requirement.
There is a big misconception about how going green would affect the economy.
According to Samuelson, many environmentalists rely on simulations with completely
unrealistic factors to see the costs of green living (article 4). The economy would suffer if we
tried to stop using fossil fuels, and in 2050 we would need 500 million acres of US land. Winters
believes that changing the market would lead to all of the old industries collapsing, causing a
large amount of job loss, economic struggles, and unemployment as well (article 6). It is clear
that if the government required green living, then the economy would crumble.
Just because the government shouldnt make green living required, doesnt mean the US
shouldnt work to help the environment. According to Webber, in Singapore, the government

Anstine 2

uses taxes to help encourage people to live green (article 2). The government requires that each
citizen who wishes to drive must first get a 10,000 dollar permit, and money earned from this
goes to support a mass transit system. Also by giving tax benefits to those who use hybrids, the
government is helping to improve the environment, and it is helping the economy as well. The
Energy Savers Booklet shows that transportation takes up 67% of all US oil consumption (article
3). This makes it even more clear just how much the US could accomplish to help the
environment, without destroying the economy, by supporting cleaner alternatives without making
them required.
The truth of the matter is, many more people make a conscious effort to help the
environment than before, and the trend of growing green will continue to spread in the years to
come. According to Winters, the natural increase in people going green today is much more
beneficial than finding a single solution and making that solution required (article 6). Rheault
displays that many citizens worldwide are making a conscious effort to do their part and help
society (article 5). By allowing citizens worldwide to naturally become less wasteful instead of
making green living required, society as a whole would be less wasteful than in previous years,
without crippling the economy.
In conclusion, the government should not make green living required because it harms
the economy, because the government can use taxes to help improve the environment and that
would be more beneficial to society than making green living required, and because its better
that going green continues to naturally become more popular instead of the government
enforcing it. If the government make green living required then it would wipe out the old
industries and it would be devastating for the economy. The US needs to take a page from
Singapore, who has used taxes to help the environment. These days, more and more people are

Anstine 3

becoming a part of the green living trend, and it would be more beneficial to society to allow this
trend to continue than to enforce green living. It is clear that there is a lot that individuals can do
to help the environment, however it would not be effective for green living to be required.