>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?
Well, I think the EPA under Clinton was trying to do that, meaning add all
the health and other costs against the costs the industry would have to bear.
You can kiss all that goodbye under the current administration.
>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.
I think that was the conclusion of many people, including many big business
leaders, over the past 10 years or so. But, don't expect any current
political leader to promote it.
--
Be Seeing You.
Dirk Wright
< 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 >
|