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]. 

At 01:22 PM 11/9/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>John,
>
>I have run across some of the works by Cantor.  As for the break even
>point, that is an empirical question and one that cannot (imo) be
>solved with logical analysis alone.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>---John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure if - Steve - you have come across any works written by
>the
>> mathematician George Cantor. As a mathematician Cantor was
>fascinated by the
>> concept of the infinite. The infinite can be viewed mathematically
>two ways:
>> as a quantity that is either infinitely small or infinitely  large,
>since
>> the number one is both infinitely small depending on the object or
>body it
>> signifies, or infinitely big; bigger numbers than one are infinitely
>smaller
>> than one. Why? It is very easy to prove! Go dis-prove this. The
>infinite is
>> only an attribute of a body or object. The physical proof is so
>simple that
>> any one of average training and intelligence could prove this. In
>symbolic
>> logic therefore a set, [with its proper domain  to include all things
>> existing now in the universe] which is termed infinite, to be
>infinite must
>> contain all subsets. What does this mean? Es mas facil! Is it one or
>many?
>> How can one thing with it's value set to unity contain multiplicity?
>Is
>> there a inherent contradiction here in logic? 
>> 
>> Since as you say firms pollute by necessity, and firms are necessary
>to
>> commerce and civilization, it could be concluded that pollution is
>necessary
>> [evil or otherwise]. Carrying forward your arguement that no firm
>cannot
>> fail to pollute [even a cow farts methane], since  costs are
>infinitely
>> large for reducing pollution to zero, at which point therefore is
>the break
>> even point acheived on the return for expenditures to reduce
>pollution? 
>> 
>> At 11:32 AM 11/9/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>> >Yes Corey it is that simple.  It is that simple because ALL firms
>> >pollute to some degree.  Thus, ALL firms are engaged in criminal
>> >activity and since zero pollution is the goal then you shut down ALL
>> >firms.  Why is this so difficult?
>> >
>> >This is why I think the costs of reducing pollution to zero can for
>> >all intents and purposes be considered infinite.  Given this,
>shutting
>> >down all firms is not an option and neither is achieving zero
>pollution.
>> >
>> >Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >---"M. Corey Watts" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At 10:31 AM 11/7/98 -0800, you wrote:
>> >> >You missed the point Corey.  I don't think people were pissed
>because
>> >> >it was Exxon, but what happened.  Steven Bissel has taken the
>> >approach
>> >> >that any firm (why only firms is totoally beyond me...I guess he
>> >> >thinks firms exist independently of humans) that pollutes is
>engaged
>> >> >in a criminal activity and should not be allowed to pollute at
>all. 
>> >> >If this is indeed the case then the solution is obvious.  Shut
>down
>> >> >all firms.  Simple ain't it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Steve
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> You're pretty good at facetious comments Steve. Nothing's simple.
>> >> 
>> >> I did put a query to the floor regarding the identity, rights and
>> >> responsibilities of corporate identities a little while ago, but
>> >no-one
>> >> thought it was of any interest.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Corey Watts (PGDipSc Student) 
>> >> Centre for Conservation Biology
>> >> The University of Queensland
>> >> St Lucia, Qld, AUSTRALIA 4068.
>> >> 
>> >> e-mail:	[log in to unmask]
>> >> Telephone:  	+61 7 3365 2475
>> >> Facsimile: 	+61 7 3365 1655
>> >> CCB Website: 	http://www.ccb.uq.edu.au/website
>> >> 
>> >> "Wings and feathers on the crying, mysterious Ages...
>> >> ...all that is right, all that is good."
>> >> D.H. Lawrence, "The Wild Common."
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >
>> >_________________________________________________________
>> >DO YOU YAHOO!?
>> >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>         
>> 
>> 
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
        



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