Environmental issues... speak up

[glenn1]

This classic topic got brought up again in another thread. This time, i'll pose a two-part question for this thread.

First question - over the course of the last 25-30 years, with the focus that has been put on improving the environment, do you think that our environment is better, worse or about the same, for both the U.S., and around the world?

Second question - it is often easier to quantify the economic costs associated with particular measures than the benefit that will derive from them. A company can easily determine how much a now required piece of equipment will cost them, whereas the benefit of the cleaner environment produced may be hard to put a "dollars and cents" price tag on. What economic "cost" of putting a particular requirement in place do you think makes worthwhile the benefit of the requirement?

Let's use this for an example - say massive oil deposits were located in a National Park. How much oil, and how much lower a price at the pump would justify allowing the oil to be drilled? Conversely, say oil prices would rise if you DIDN'T drill.. how much would you tolerate oil prices rising, in order to protect the park?

Please, let's be civil to each other during this discussion too... if someone disagrees with you, that doesn't justify calling them a "right wing extremist nazi" or a "liberal pinko commie tree-hugger." Let's try to keep it a level of civil discourse, please

 

[AndrewR]

Environment has improved and degraded in the last 25-30 years. While we have been placing a greater emphasis on environmental issues and numerous groups have sprung up to combat the wholesale destruction of the environment, the massive growth and construction that this country has seen has eaten away at the best efforts to control it. The proliferation of two family households, crowded roads, and lack of adequate public transportation has meant that air pollution has significantly worsened in most metropolitan areas (I live in Atlanta -- the air is horrible here when ten years ago it was fine, that's sickening).

Gross errors have been corrected to a large degree, such as Cleveland's open sewer for a river. The government is actively cleaning up its installations with the military, for instance, spending considerable resources cleaning up the mistakes of its past (dumping petrochemicals and solvents into the ground on older bases, Pope AFB had that problem).

The broadening of scientific testing of different chemicals has improved our lot and that of animals, DDT being a prime example and other pesticides as well. However, chemical dumping is still a considerable problem though recent record fines against companies and individuals will hopefully help to discourage the practice in the future.

Your national park example is really fairly simple. The cost of producing the oil is directly related to the cost of the oil in the market. If you need to take extraordinary measures to protect the environment in creating a feasible well, then the oil will be prohibitively expensive. Since we do have stronger environment impact laws than we used to, it's not as easy to drill anywhere as it used to be.

Did you know that the U.S. has oil reserves equal to the Middle East? Unfortunately, it's locked in shale in the northern tier states so it's not cost effective to convert it to liquid. However, should the Middle Eastern, Russian, and other major producers start to falter, oil prices will rise, and that shale oil will become profitable to mine and refine.

The problem with some people is that they do tend to look at these problems in a completely economic light. That is misguided because one cannot quantify the destruction of an old growth forest. Since our understanding of the ecosystem is still limited, and new creatures and characteristics are discovered every day, we might lose something in that forest worth untold billions of dollars or something even priceless (a cure for cancer, or perhaps an ancient genetic species of animal). Anyone who doesn't value the wilderness has never been hiking or camping in a remote area, away from the ugliness of urban areas.

All of this is coming from a fairly conservative person, but I have grown more ardent about my support of the environment as I have seen it deteriorating around me. When I must curtail my jogging outside because the smog is dangerous for heavy exertion, I truly fear for our future. What will be left when I have kids who grow up into a city where respirators are necessary for health, such as in Mexico City?

The key to the problem is tempering concern for the environment with sensible restrictions. Outright bans on practices or absolute restrictions on construction only anger those who might support your ideas. If you thwart someone's plans and cost them money or time, they will turn against you. If you tell someone they cannot build their dream home because of the location, they will resent you and what you stand for. If you work with them to construct the home in a way that complements the environment and retains the beauty and ecology, they might just appreciate it as much as you do. If they are intractable and insist on the environment's destruction, then throw them off a cliff.

I ramble...

 

[fishy101]

Wow, I never thought someone would post environmental issues on this BBS...coool.

Anyways, to answer the questions of the original post, I think environmental issues in the U.S. has gotten more attention, which has led to noticable improvements in many areas, especially in LA where air quality has improved quite a bit such that it's no longer the worst in the nation. However, such improvements had to happen after the fact that people in LA got the sh!t scared out of them when the first published report rank them the worst city to live in. What other large cities need to do is learn from that, and incoporate environmental planning in the design stages of whatever they are doing. That will eventually save coporations and governments tons of money and time from cleanups.

I would go on, but I am really tired now. I need slleep.....

 

[Raspewtin]

I'm pretty unqualified to answer this, as having done no research of any kind, but I'd like to hazard a guess on Question 1. I think in the last 25 or 30 years, things have improved, but also in the last 20 or 30, we started realizing how huge the problem really is. Thus, although it seems we have more to do now, I would think that's at least partly due to the fact that now we are looking at the problem better.

I'm a little confused about your 2nd question - I would think it would be different in every situation

 

[glenn1]

Here is a link for a magazine, which i think has an outstanding record of presenting environmental issues, from a variety of viewpoints... some are definitely worth a read, no matter what your thoughts on the issue are...
Atlantic Monthly Some fascinating stories here.