Answer:
Health and Safety
Environmental laws protect the health and safety of humans and the environment. For example, the Clean Air Act limits emissions of pollutants, and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act prohibits dumping of waste into U.S. ocean waters without a permit. (See References 1 and 4) Without such laws, businesses and individuals might do whatever was most convenient or cost-effective for them, rather than acting for the good of society and the environment.
Innovation
Stricter environmental laws tend to increase innovative environmentally friendly technology, writes Frank Wijen in "A Handbook of Globalization and Environmental Policy." (See Reference 5, Page 216) The demand for sustainable technology rises as companies and individuals must follow stricter environmental regulations, leading researchers and clean energy entrepreneurs to focus on developing such technologies. Ultimately, this increases the prominence of sustainable technologies, making them more accessible.
Costs
Businesses may see certain environmental laws in a negative light if they must adapt their practices and increase spending to comply with regulations. Individuals may feel inconvenienced by particular laws as well, such as a new law against fishing in a favorite spot. Conducting a cost-benefit analysis of environmental laws often proves challenging, as negative effects of not implementing these laws -- such as death, illness and ecosystem destruction -- cannot always be easily quantified in monetary terms. (See Reference 2) However, becoming more environmentally friendly may actually save businesses and individuals money in the long term, particularly by reducing waste and energy usage, despite the cost of the initial investment.
Oversights
Environmental laws that impose regulations without considering their impacts on local communities come with a serious disadvantage: lack of local support. For example, a law that commands people to stay out of a protected natural area, without recognizing that people rely on this ecosystem for their own daily needs, may not only constitute a human rights violation, but may actually backfire, says the Center for International Forestry Research. Community participation in ecosystem management helps to ensure compliance with regulations, reports CIFOR.
Explanation:
Many of the countries that participated in WWI expected a very short war. None of them prepared economically for such a long war, such as in the case of stockpiling raw materials such as steel or iron, or stockpiling food. Two of the consequences in economic policies where the following:
- The front lines had to be channeled with male workers, and one of the economic policies used to control the cost of war was forcing women and children to work at the production of weapons and munition. It is calculated that the French and Germans fired around 10 millions shells, with a total weight of 1.4 millions tons of steel.
- Food became an issue during WWI, with severe food shortages reported in urban areas by 1915. This caused a great increase in food prices, and food riots became more common and violent. Agriculture was in the hands of women, and food had to be stockpiled.
I hope this answer helps you. Have a great day!
Answer:
It maximizes the number of political freedoms that are guaranteed to state governments
Explanation:
Hope this helps, and please mark me brainliest if it does!
The bid business transformed the US in various forms. It created new social classes - wealthy industrialists, middle classes and blue collar working class -.
Factories needed labor force, so immigrants from Europe went to the US looking for work, also Americans that used to live in rural areas moved to the cities to work.
The problem for workers was that they were mostly unemployed a part of the years, the wages were low and labor unions were not supported by the government and the owners of the factories who wanted big profit.
Answer:
so they know if they know if they were a witness or not
Explanation:
