From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:47:12 GMT

simoni@strat.Stanford.EDU (Richard Simoni) writes:
>No, I wouldn't go to that gas station, but the problem is that I probably
>wouldn't find out that they were dumping.  By what mechanism are polluters
>discovered and exposed to the public so that consumers can make such
>informed decisions?  I think this is a hard problem.  >Rich Simoni

Yes.  This is the point I'd like to make (in addition to others):
1.  It is within a company's interest to conduct its illegal activities
    (if any) in secret.  Thus, you are not likely to hear about "unpopular"
    activities that a company does.  Generally, you are unlikely to know who
    is dumping what toxic waste where, and why, because this is a sure turn-off
    for consumers.
2.  Same with regards to the environment: do you know what each product you buy
    costs in terms of the environment?   Do you know precisely what is in all
    you eat?  How about your toiletries?  How about your home care products?
    Car care products?  Do you know what pollutants (if any) are produced by
    each of these processes?

The environment does have limits.  We find them when we reach them, but the
problem is when we reach them we usually have to back off a lot before things
regain their balance.  It may not be possible for us to feed 6-8 billion people
without doing major soil damage.  It may not be possible for us to maintain our
present level of economic advantage if environmental damage to some countries
which provide us with services render those countries nearly uninhabitable.
Think of the computer you're using.  Tell me what it cost you.  Okay, now tell
me what part of that was labor, what rough quantity of materials were used,
and what environmentally dangerous pollutants were produced in creating it.
Judging by the process used to create chips and such, I doubt that we are at
the stage where all pollutants used are somehow miraculously kept out of the
environment.

There are some big problems with pollution per se.  For one, it has next to
no economic value.  Unlike "heat pollution" (which I didn't think was pollution
per se), biotoxins are, well, deadly so you don't want to use them anywhere
near living things.  The only thing they're good for is biotoxin disposal
research at universities trying to manufacture bacteria which can eat thru the
stuff.  
Second, air pollution.  Okay, capture the CO2 and sulfates produced as "smog".
How?  Filters?  Big tanks sitting on the smokestacks? :)  Once you've got it,
what are you gonna do with it?  Blow up baloons with it?  Hmm... possible but
unlikely.  CO2 is generally a waste byproduct with limited uses, most of which
involve converting it into O2 by the use of plants.
Third, water pollution.  Thanks to our pollution, we have killed off or nearly
killed off many lakes and such.  Sewer waste isn't that bad; nature usually
can take care of a lot of it.  Raw toxic gunk is another thing altogether.

On the other hand, not all environmental damage is the result of pollution.
Those plastic fishing nets people are complaining about could do some serious
damage, given many of them, and given time, if reports are accurate.  While
I don't consider global warming/cooling a problem (yet), I do consider smog
days in Los Angeles one big problem (and I don't even live in the US).  There
is a point at which you must ask youself "is getting another few options on
my car worth producing another few tons of pollutants?".  Well, maybe YOU don't
ask yourself these questions, but I ask them of myself.  Are you guys really
happy dumping large quantities of toxins into your atmosphere, land, and water
until your sky is yellow/brown, your water is tan-colored or green and your
land is rated unsuitable for growing food?  Are you happy reducing biodiversity
until we find out how much of the food chain we're gonna lose if we keep
hacking at the insects, trees, and birds?  Will you think that the world is
a good place if those birds twittering in the park start dying of sulfate
poisoning, and you don't have any birds to listen to anymore?

Unfortunately, sitting at home with a cat and dog does not make one
particularly prone to making educated assessments of what is being taken
out of the environment to produce what you are buying, and what is being
put back into the environment as the result of the production and when it's
time to throw the thing away.  Sitting at home and watching the news does not
particularly make you a reasonable judge of what environmental damage hacking
down this or that forest will do.  The problem is that we're only beginning
to understand things like "if you kill off a species' food chain, it dies".
Makes sense, right?  Well, what do the birds eat?  Do they contribute any
positive effect to other plants and animals?  How about the insects?  What
do they eat, and what eats them?  Is that rainforest really important to global
weather patterns or what?  Will it produce a big desert if it's cut down, or
will the land be okay?  How about overchemicalization of the soil?  Will the
soil bacteria like being drugged into production?  Will they just die off?

Another thing you should consider:  One of these days, metals and oil will
become precious commodities.  That is, they will become more and more scarce
as we keep using them up.  Then what do you build stuff out of?  Cardboard?

I watched a program about moon colonization and it's interesting.  Basically
the entire system would have to be as self-sufficient as possible to be as
profitable (or least of a strain on the taxpayer) as possible.  Thus, not
having an environment, they have to make everything "recyclable", except for
what they can "harvest": solar energy and moon dust.  You'd be surprised how
much they're thinking of doing with just solar energy and moon dust.  However
I wouldn't like to live there particularly.  Pressure-suits to move about
when not in a cubicled apartment, no real scenery except holes in the ground
caused by meteorites, and very little else.  Is this living?  Surviving, sure,
but living?  If we reduce our environment on Earth to somewhat near what it
would be like on the moon, do we deserve to live?

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA