The cost of pollution and habitat mismanagement, over time, will be higher than the cost of doing nothing. But the cost now is cheaper. Arguing only from practical standpoints (that is, avoiding an appeal to emotion), how could you convince the executive board of a firstworld industrial corporation dependent on an ocean resource to reduce or eliminate the negative effects of its activities?
We need at least 10 more requests to produce the solution.
0 / 10 have requested this problem solution
The more requests, the faster the answer.