How we can justify environmental damage?

Anthropogenic climate changes stress the importance of understanding why people harm the environment despite their attempts to behave in climate friendly ways. This paper argues that one reason behind why people do this is that people apply heuristics, originally shaped to handle social exchange, on the issues of environmental impact. Reciprocity and balance in social relations have been fundamental to social cooperation, and thus to survival, and therefore the human brain has become specialized by natural selection to compute and seek this balance. When the same reasoning is applied to environment-related behaviors, people tend to think in terms of a balance between “environmentally friendly” and “harmful” behaviors, and to morally account for the average of these components rather than the sum. This balancing heuristic leads to compensatory green beliefs and negative footprint illusions—the misconceptions that “green” choices can compensate for unsustainable ones. “Eco-guilt” from imbalance in the moral environmental account may promote pro-environmental acts, but also acts that are seemingly pro-environmental but in reality more harmful than doing nothing at all. Strategies for handling problems caused by this cognitive insufficiency are discussed.

Explanation:

the president was the speaker and it was a great part of history.

explanation:

video of the national aeronautic space administration's (nasa) coverage of president john f. kennedy’s address at rice university, houston, texas, concerning the nation's efforts in space exploration. in his speech the president discusses the necessity for the united states to become an international leader in space exploration and famously states, "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

i think the answer will be theseeeennutttsssss