John,

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Granted some of the wastes
generated by one firm may very well be usable by another firm. If the
benefit from the waste accrues simple because of production of the
'pollutant' and the firm benefitting does not pay for it then we have
a positive externality. Further, I am sure many firms do indeed sell
what for them is a 'waste' product to other firms thus, turning the
'waste product' into a productive resource, but this only reduces the
pollution problem I doubt that it could be used in every instance as a
solution.

Further your analysis of the diaper issue is incomplete. It takes
resources to make those diapers. I for one would be curious to find
out the cost in terms of resources of cloth vs. disposable diapers.
You have to look at the entire picture here. You cannot look at each
market and attempt to fix the various short commings while at the same
time ignoring the problems in other markets. This we get from the
idea of general equilibrium and the fact that as prices change in one
sector of the economy it has effects on other sectors. Disposable
diapers have to be washed, which could mean higher electricity use,
more use of detergents, etc. Not to mention the manpower that goes
into cleaning the diapers. Also, cloth diapers are probably
susceptible to depreciation so new ones will have to be made. So
while the idea of cloth diapers may be a good idea in the end it could
be more expensive (broadly defined).

I think that a similar problem may occur with paper vs. styrofoam
cups. I have bought hot beverages in paper cups and often have to get
a second or third cup to keep from burning my hands. I have also
heard that paper cups use a heck of alot more electricity to make. So
while paper cups maybe recyclable I wonder if there really is a savings.


Steve



---John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> So then you would agree that at some point it is profitable for some
firms
> to control pollution then. So by necessity, then, not all firms
pollute to
> the extent that the pollution cannot be economically prevented,
eliminated,
> or reduced substantially. So this leads to my next observation.
There are
> actually many firms that take waste [potential pollution] and use it
for the
> production of other services or goods, case in point: chicken
manure, CO2
> from corn ethanol plants. Now if one attribute of a firm is that it
pollutes
> [creates waste - or non-product outputs], it is also correct
therefore to
> say that there is no reason not to believe [as you say] that to stop
all
> pollution would result in costs to the firm that could not be
absorbed.
> Right? If in fact all firms and all people are guilty of discharging
waste,
> which is potential pollution, with potentially adverse effects, then
at some
> point before it actually becomes waste it becomes a resource that
can be
> utitilized by some other firm. You mentioned diapers. Well if the
day care
> center decided to have all parent use the cotton diapers that are
capable of
> 'reuse' then this would prevent waste from entering the landfill and
> becoming pollution later in the hydrosphere, or atmosphere [assuming
that
> the fecal matter is processed in tertiary modern sewage plants and
the water
> is good for fish species]. P2 [pollution prevention] can be
profitable. As
> the business case you mention does not consider the cost of disposal
of the
> paper diapers, due to possibly charging this cost to overhead
[unallocated
> costs], since it is hidden, there is no incentive to change from
paper
> diapers to cotton reuseables. Secondly, the cost of disposalof paper
diapers
> is born not only by the firm [day care center] it also is born later
by
> future generations since waste becomes polluting only when it has an
adverse
> effect on some component of the environment. As the landfill fills
up, the
> cost of finding and locating more landfills increases exponentially
until an
> alternative is found such as incineration, or disposal at sea. The
idea
> presented here is that pollution is only an attribute to economic
ways of
> thinking as well as it is to ecological systems [usually that which
pollutes
> could be a necessity when it is found within trace amounts like many
trace
> elements in the soil] so - more or less - there is no basis for
stating
> that when something like a dirty diaper hits the ground that this
must be
> considered pollution. It is entirely a matter of degree since in my
example
> some elements are essential to life at trace levels in the
environment but
> become toxic at higher levels. There are oligotrophic ecosystems as
there
> are eutrophic ecosytems where there is no commerce. Commerce can make
> oligotrophic ecosystems from eutrophic ecosystems just as easily as
it can
> make make an oligotrophic ecosystem eutrophic. In the case of a
hydro dam
> above a natural lake a systems effect of the dam is to block nutrient
> transport. So commerce can reduce pollution not be design but by
effect
> [inadvertent].

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



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