If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The most important question we have to deal with is a combination of population control and the control of our environment - how to utilize the world in as effective a way as we can for the future of mankind.
We must conserve our environment and pass it on to our children in as good or better condition than it was passed to us.
Environmental protection doesn't happen in a vacuum. You can't separate the impact on the environment from the impact on our families and communities.
It is economically irrational to exclude large environmental costs from the balance sheets of the producers and the consumers. You are only kidding yourself if you export those costs on to society as a whole.
I think today we recognize that economic activity needs to search for ways to protect the environment.
We must guard against the overreaching hand of big government trying to take away our freedom. And we must always protect the environment in a manner consistent with our values.
I think the government has to reposition environment on top of their national and international priorities.
The only way forward, if we are going to improve the quality of the environment, is to get everybody involved.
Natural resources are so vast that no single individual or business is going to protect them; they don't have an incentive to.
Environmental protection and economic development are not in conflict. Environmental protection is not a burden but a source for innovation. It can increase competition, create jobs, and lifts the economy.