WSP03262 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the new transformation might be estimated from the cost of the former one, which must represent a capital investment in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars, To this must be added, of course, the cost of re- pairing the ecological damage that has already been incurred, such as the eutrophication of Lake Erie- again, a bill to be reckoned in the hundreds of billions of dollars, THE ENORMOUS SIZE of these costs raises a final question: Is there some functional connection in the econ- omy between the tendency of a given productive activity to inflict an intense impact on the environ- ment (and the size of the resultant costs) and the role of this activity in economic growth? For it is evi- dent from even a cursory compari- son of the productive activities that have rapidly expanded in the U,S, economy since 1946 with the activi- ties they displaced that the displac- ing activities are also considerably more profitable than those displaced, The correlation between profitability and rapid growth is one that is pre- sumably accountable by economics, Is the additional linkage to intense environmental impact also function- al, or only accidental? It has been pointed out often enough that environmental pollution represents a long-unpaid debt to nature, Is it possible that the U,S, economy has grown since 1946 by deriving much of its new wealth through the enlargement of that debt? If this should turn out to be the case, what strains will develop in the economy if, for the sake of the survival of our society, that debt should now be called? Barry Commoner, Director of ,he Center tor the Biology of Natllral Systems at Washington University ill St. Louis. ~ A RECONCILIATION OF GOALS We may expect the debate between the proponents of growth and the proponents of preservation to evoke all the irrational arguments that have characterized the debate on the Supersonic Transport or the Alaska pipeline, But to say this is merely to suggest that progress toward a polit- ical reconciliation of these conflict- ing goals will follow the course of any social development. The nature of the reconciliation will depend on the political strength of the opposing forces. To date, despite the growing num- bers of the environmentalists, politi- cal forces have been heavily weighted in favor of the economic and tech- nological interests concerned with growth, Furthermore, there bas been exaggeration, even hysteria, in the claims of various environmentalists that has not been of service to their cause, What is badly needed is a sober appraisal by a reputable au- thority of what is known and not known about the environmental ef- fects of economic activities and of the trade-offs in these activities be- tween production and preservation. But, even if and when this is done, I suspect that we shall discover how little is known of the relevant facts, I am not concerned here with such obvious lacunae as ignorance of whether we have more to fear from the "greenhouse effect" of excessive discharges of carbon dioxide than from the "iceberg effect" of dis- charges 01 particulates into the upper atmosphere. We j]re astonish- ingly ignorant about much smaller matters, Let me give you an example, The State 01 Massachusetts decreed that by October 1, 1970, the sulfur content of residual luel oil, which had been running at about 2,5 per- cent, should be reduced to I percent. Consumers of fuel oil in the Boston area who had been paying $1.90 a barrel (admittedly an abnormally low price) found the price rising by s~es to $4,30 a barrel. Obviously, the cost of sulfur removal was not the only factor involved, but it was important. The law also decreed that the permissible sulfur content should be reduced to 0,5 percent by October I, 1971, and there have been suggestions that it be reduced to zero by 1975, Now, considering the fact that Boston is a seacoast city with prevailing westerly winds and that sulfur from fuel constitutes certainly less than 20 percent of the not very bothersome air pollution in the Boston area, one is entitled to doubt whether the benefit derived from this reduction of air pollution is worth the extra cost to fuel oil consumers, 1 do not know what the answer is, but 1 doubt very much whether the Massachusetts General Court did either, 2697 The attainment of a sensible trade- off between growth and environ- mental preservation is currently hampered at every stage by igno- rance-by lack of physical and chem, ical knowledge of the effects of various discharges on atmospheric changes or rates of change in water composition; by ignorance of the biological and entomological effects of various types and levels of pollu- tion on human beings, plants, and animals; by ignorance, because of the lack of market tests, of what valuation people put on an improve- ment or worsening of levels of various types of pollution; and by ignorance of certain economic con- siderations that could tell us some- thing about how various pollution measures would affect relative prices, outputs, and employment in partic- ular industries and the location of business enterprises. We grope, not in complete darkness, but in a rather dismal sort of gloom, As I have emphasized, reconciliation of diverse energy goals takes place through a political process, But the kind of reconciliation that could emerge in the present state of our ignorance might involve either ir- reparable damage to the environ- ment or, on the other hand, a sacri- fice of growth possibilities to unreasonable and unnecessary en- vironmental precautions, The kind of reconciliations we must aim to- ward is one arrived at by a political process of decision making based on technical knowledge of what the trade-offs between growth and en- vironmental protection really amount to, It would still be a political re- conciliation but one having some hope of being influenced by fact and rational analysis, LET ME OFFER two final observa- tions. There are those who main- tain that an expansion of output and investment along customary lines is essential to the maintenance of a high level of employment. But there seems to be no reason to believe at least without further investigadon, that the employment-creating effects of restoring the environment will be any less than those involved in pol- luting the environment. Furthermore, they will have approximately the same effects on the rate of growth of GNP as it is conventionally measured. It is true we will not have as many final goods and serv- ices to consume. But those who take 5