In a message dated 2/5/2001 4:16:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Dirk said:
>
> > The issue is that it costs industry billions of dollars to install
> equipment
> > to clean up their effluent. Adding more requirements will only add to
> their
> > cost, which will then be passed on to consumers. So the real issue is, how
> > clean is clean enough?....
> >
> And industry is griping and dragging their collective feet. They have
> money that buys power and influence. But the true cost of pollution and
> environmental degradation is not just measured by the cost of stack
> scrubbers etc. What about heath costs? What about the increased
> deterioration of buildings, bridges, and my OM equipment, etc.? What
> about pollution's effect on fertility and plant growth? What about
> depletion of soils? What would a rise in sea level cost? All of these
> types of costs the consumer is _already_ paying and at the same time
> forced to subsidize the polluters e.g. mining. What about the fact that
> pollution sometimes means an inefficient process, correction of which
> saves money. I think that if all the credits and debits were to be added
> then a clean environment is the clear economic choice and that is
> without concern for aesthetic values.
>
> Mike
Well said Mike. I'm trying to stay out of this discussion b/c it's something
that really gets under my skin. In any case, I think you point out the real
problem: shortsightedness. It seems we are in a what's-in-it-for-me society
where people don't grasp the larger issues outside the normal routine. Maybe
that's a stretch, but people just don't seem to have the correct perspective
on the world we live in or the country we live (wherever you live). For
example, I could drop $1000 on a 8mm fisheye and its likely more than some
people in the world make in 20 years!
--p.j.
|