Environmental protection structurally requires present sacrifice for unverifiable future gain

Evidence

Environmental protection is the functional equivalent of a long-term investment (or, perhaps, betting on a sincere personal belief) in the future, perhaps never even to be realized during the lives of the present generation. Subscribing to an environmental protection regime may mean that in the present less groundwater can be extracted, fewer trees can be cut down, fewer fish can be harvested, or less carbon dioxide can be emitted so that the natural environment may still be sustainable for distant future generations. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 983

Categorization

• XREF: Builds on ch9’s treatment of delayed harms and ch19’s discounting of future benefits. — connects to: Cost-benefit analysis narrows the questions environmental law can ask — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 317; Meanwhile mobile capital can undermine national production standards including environmental ones — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 341; Persistent pollutants postpone their harm to future generations. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 85 (+8 more)
• ADDENDUM: Supports the sacrifice article’s logic of present cost for diffuse future benefit.

Broader Connections

• Environmentally sustainable futures require norm-changing values, not incremental fixes #expands (0.78)
• Immediate rewards override distant slowly accumulating environmental harms #exemplifies (0.75) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2546
• Preservation inherently requires removal from immediacy and external influence #qualifies (0.72)