-----Original Message-----
From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: Perceptions of sustainability


>---Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Policy certainly can consider the big picture, but ethics has to look at
>individual actions. Just because we reduce total pollution does not mean
>that those who suffer from the impacts of specific sources of
>pollution are
>not ethically important. Same as with crime, the total crime rate in
>the US
>is down, but that does not mean that individual victims are
>unimportant. Is
>that analagous? I don't know or care, my point is the same; Ethically I
>don't think that pollution credits are all that good of an idea. While
>the
>big goal of pollution reduction may be met, some firms will be allowed
>to
>continue to pollute as long as they can afford to do so. Like most
>economic
>solutions to problems, it proposes a single solution to all
>situations. The
>role of ethics is to say that individual circumstances do count.
>----

Steve responds;
>
>So some firms should be allowed to pollute?
>
Bissell answers;
No! wasn't that my point? Individual firms *should not* be allowed to
pollute even if the total pollution in whatever area is being measured is
acceptable.

Steve continues;


>Actually, I think your reasoning is incorrect for the following
>reason. I don't think individuals really care what plant is doing the
>polluting. That is I don't think individuals care that they air is
>dirty because firm A or B is polluting, but that individuals care that
>the air is dirty and they want it reduced (I am assuming that the two
>firms produce the same pollution). The reason for this is that when
>they go outside they don't see which particles of pollution are
>produced by firm A and those that are produced by firm B. When they
>take a breath and cough they don't say "Goddamn that firm B. I wish
>someone would do something about firm B."


Bissell responds;
The entire field of environmental justice says otherwise. People certainly
do care about who, specifically, is polluting. Did it matter that Exxon was
responsible for the Prince William Sound oil spill? I think so. "Think
globally, act locally" has always been the battle cry, and "Think locally,
act even more locally" has been the reality of the environmental movement
from the beginning. As in banning DDT in the US, but allowing unlimited
exportation to be used on crops in South America and then shipped back to
us.
>
>
Steve continues;

Now when you have different types of pollution be pumped into the air
>then it makes very good sense to be concerned about the levels of the
>various pollutants and assuming (a very heroic assumption) that some
>sort of credit trading program were in place then you might want to
>have different amounts of credits for different pollutants. The
>reason for instituting such a system is to address the losses by the
>individuals so I think you claims that those who suffer the ill
>affects of pollution are being ignored is false.

Bissell responds;
You are back to my example (analogy?) of petty criminals selling credits to
murderers. If I'm in a low pollution industry or have acquired many credits,
I can sell them to the highest bidder. Won't that usually be the industry
who pollutes the most or has the highest expense in reducing pollution, i.e.
the industry society has the greatest desire to see put out of the pollution
business, even if that means out of business altogether?
>
>
Steve continues;

Also, a firm will continue to pollute only so long as the cost of
>retooling is greater than the cost of purchasing the credits to
>pollute. To coerce the firm to retool obviously imposes a greater
>loss on society than the trading scheme does.
>
Bissell ends (thankfully)
exactly my point. The firm will continue to pollute for as long as it
possibly can no matter what if the only issue is economics. If, however, the
issue is criminal penalties, they'll stop when the rest of us tell them to.
Coercion? You bet! So what? Isn't that how we treat criminals?

I'm concerned that as long as we treat intentional pollution as *merely* an
economic problem and not a moral problem, then pollution will continue.

Steven J. Bissell
http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
http://www.responsivemanagement.com
Our human ecology is that of a rare species of mammal
in a social, omnivorous niche. Our demography is one of
a slow-breeding, large, intelligent primate.
To shatter our population structure, to become abundant
in the way of rodents, not only destroys our ecological
relations with the rest of nature, it sets the stage
for our mass insanity.
                                                       Paul Shepard



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%