Slashdot Mirror
Environmentally Profitable
lemmingEffect writes: "Came across this NYT article about how many companies are finding unexpected cost-savings for using more environmentally-friendly manufacturing processes and materials. Kinda like getting paid to clean your room--sure would have made me happier as a kid. =)"
This is a good step in the right direction, the maximizing of profit at all other costs is terrible. Still we have a long way to go, in my local community a battery plant is run with a bare minimum staff so that the EPA will not do a massive inspection after the plant closes. They moved operations to mexico and decided it was cheaper to keep the plant open with a skeleton crew than to do the cleanup costs involved :-(
"Contact with my own species has always disappointed me. Solitude gives me a freedom of mind and an independence of action." -Captain Nemo
This is all a byproduct of a new system called "environmental accounting." For years, corporations have been used to applying standard accounting techniques to manufacturing processes to maximize profits and process efficiency, but nobody ever thought of applying those accounting methods to environmental issues. The classic EA example is a company that uses mercury in manufacturing. The accountant measures the mercury the co. buys, and subtracts the amount that ends up in the product plus the amount reclaimed from waste. For example, they buy 20 tons a year, and 15 goes into the products, 3 are reclaimed from waste. 2 tons are unaccounted for and are presumed to go directly into the environment. To plug the mercury leak, you just go through the process and see where it's not accounted for.
This article just cites examples where the gov't has mandated environmental accounting and gives disincentives to inefficient processes. If only we could get people to use EA just because it's good for the environment!
Pretty much no matter what we do to the earth, we're not going to wipe out all forms of life on earth, as you said. We can't 'destroy' the planet.
However, it's theoretically possible that some types of environmental damage could seriously affect our human quality of life.
We could wipe out the ozone layer, and animals would evolve to be more resistant to UV radiation. Some probably wouldnt be able to, and some would, but in the end we're not wiping out all forms of life on earth. But, I'd rather not have to take a bath in SPF 5000 every time I leave the house. Or only be able to go out at night. Sure, we could do it, but it would suck.
Same thing with global warming. If, (and it's a big if, I know. But bear with me here)... If we are causing the planet to warm up noticably, there would likely be some changes. THe land currently used for farmland might be turned to desert, for example. Sure, land that was previously frozen further north would now be a decent temperature for farmland. But it would seriously affect the quality of life for millions (billions?) or people.
As for new technologies and more efficiency being the answer... it's the answer for some problems, but not all.
-J5K
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
While I don't aim to excuse the behavior of corporations using public money to foot the bill, the bottom line is that someone has to foot it.
You can pay for it through higher product prices or higher taxes. While it would be more economically efficient to have consumers foot the bill for the resources consumed and wasted by the products they purchase, at least the environmental efficiences claimed by this NYT article are in fact being realized. And once realized to be profitable, such practices are more likely to be adopted.
The ultimate reality, in my mind, is that many environmental regulations are passed without regard to their economic impact (would you pay 10x the cost for water with 5x lest arsenic in it, when current levels are KNOWN to be safe?).
Thus, I believe it requires public and private cooperation to realize efficient ways to comply with environmental regulations.
Perhaps the best way would be to treat compliance expenses as research projects in cases where affordable methods are not known for compliance, in which the results (such as the practices mentioned in the NYT article) would be 'open source' published as best practices for compliance, and then future funds cut accordingly as the cost uncertainty is eliminated.
It might help to view this as a choice between funneling public funds to develop best practices which are viable or even profitable, versus hiring a bunch of regulators to monitor compliance (and how the heck do you set a fine when the costs of compliance are not well understood? This invites further gaming inefficienies).
Either requires public money. I for one am willing to invest my tax dollars to helping companies develop efficient compliance mechanisms, as long as those results are open-sourced.