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
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|