Reference no: EM133053060

Question:

Though considerable explicit and implicit controversy exists about the environmental impact of economic growth, partially (or fully? Is this possible at this time?) green or otherwise, a question emerges concerning MMT policy in terms of raising wages, and even employment, through the FJG or through the implementation of even green social programs. Assuming that due to imports, growing Kapitalization, and/or industry structure, inflation does not occur as a result of MMT policy, what is happening to the Earth? Is it possible, if not likely, that new housing starts, imports from cheaper dirty foreign economies, and increased real goods demand in other sectors will negatively impact the environment? Every new home is at high risk of destroying animal or plant habitats, wetlands or other ecological systems, and landscapes-even homes that produce no GHG emissions. Every new automobile, even if 100% electric, involves possible lithium mining, ore mining, paints, and the resources necessary to manufacture it, not to mention a variety of other resources such as, perhaps, plastic and vinyl. This does not include the increased resources, even "green" used to power it. This is also true of much, if not most, other consumption goods that upticks in labor demand and/or wages are likely to bring on. In addition, without claiming to be such an advocate, as brought up by nuclear energy advocates, if not others, is the significant environmental impact of wind and solar. More energy demand, even if entirely green, means more negative environmental impact. In theory, it is true that through recycling, using land already destroyed, and by placing high taxes and/or bans on much material consumption, much of the negative environmental impact of economic growth might (or might not) be averted, but does MMT policy, i.e. social programs, including the Federal Job Guarantee clearly, and unequivocally, count the Earth's resources as element of capacity?