i would like to reply here to some things that Steve said by quoting from
"If You Love This Planet" by Helen Caldicott, M.D.

>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.

i would be curious too. i have the feeling that the cost of the disposable
paper diapers far exceeds that of cloth diapers... does anyone have this
information or is anyone able to research this? According to Caldicott,
"the US population each year discards 16 billion diapers" (p. 69) and "From
a public health perspective, it is significant that ... feces [are] disposed
of down the toilet, whereas paper diapers full of human excreta are sent to
the dump, where pathogenic bacteria could well contaminate drinking-water
supplies." (p. 57)...

as to the use of Styrofoam, i am against it... as most of us know, CFC
gases are used in Styrofoam production.... and CFC gases are responsible
for the depletion in our ozone layer... it is not hard to trace the path
between using a Styrofoam cup for coffee getting cancer from UV rays....
also, Styrofoam takes next to forever to break down....

spirit



-----Original Message-----
From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Perceptions of sustainability


>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
>





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