From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Environment and Objectivism...... (Re: A minor problem
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:19:03 GMT

========================
 alexj@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Alexander Jackl ) writes:
>----------x---------
>Oh come on!  I have been following this thread for some time now... I
>have heard some interesting and feasible thoughts expressed.. but this
>doesn't seem to have nay connection to experience or historical data 
>at all.
>
>1) Pollution is cheaper for companies.
>
>2) "The dismantling of pollution controls would no doubt encourage the 
>judicial branch to increase the conviction rate of offenders"?  NOT!
>I don't mean to sound flaming but this has simply not been the case!
>
>3) People are not going to be "a: driven away b:pissed off".  Nice ideal-
>doesn't seem to be what happens in relaity.  People react much too late. 
>Envrionmental damage is not obvious usually till the deed is done! 
>
>I do not believe that Objectivism supports the environment much unless its
>adherents are men and women of vision...  there are no short term benefits for
>a company not to pollute. 

 There are short term benefits for a company not to pollute.

 A waste/pollutant is a misused resource. Its not a problem, but an 
 unrealised opportunity. This may seem too idealistic, but I have worked
 for companies that have come under envoronmental regulation. And I know
 what I am talking about. :)

 Historically, there used to be a big cry over "heat pollution," for example.
 All these utilities, manufacturing companies used to dump their waste heat
 streams into rivers/reservoirs - causing fishes/planktons to die. Heat
 integration technology came in - the utilities started selling their waste
 streams or integrating within the industry - and guess what: no heat
 pollution anymore. They learnt that they were dumping millions of dollars
 thinking the waste stream to be a problem. The incentive - hundreds of
 millions were/could be saved. What really crystallized the heat integration
 wave was the energy crunch of early 1970s. Well, I would suggest energy
 policy documents for more/reference.

 Pollution isn't the real problem. Our ignorance about nature and lack of
 entrepreneurs who would consider pollution as an opportunity seems to the 
 rate limiting these days. Where is everybody? :)

 More govt regulation would be terrible. I do agree that govt should protect
 the citizen. But the govt, IMO, should restrain itself to legislation. The
 executive should be left to free market. Would this work? I think, yes. 
 Have you noticed these TV commercials from lawyers - were/are you injured;
 do you know a friend who is injured.....? Well, see if
 legislation/constitution protects the individual the law industry will take
 care of polluting companies. And free competition amongst lawyers will take
 care of the law industry - there numbers are growing five times faster than
 the US population. Remember, a pollutant has to be disposed of outside of the
 polluter's premises. Doesn't that give ideas for monitoring technology based
 industry - not run by govt, but by free market?

 Isn't all this consistent with Objectivism/Capitalism?
 I think so.

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism