permaculture

[Bob Ewing & Jocelyn Paquette <sixdegrees@baynet.net>]

greetings, one reason that i believe that the source of the funds makes a 
difference is: In exchange for a few dollars we allow an environmental 
despoiler to claim that they care about the Earth
because they paid for some repair work. This enables them to go on making a 
"mess" as long as they clean it up, in other words, they can make a claim 
that they are green, and therefore a good corporate
citizen,  because they clean, or pay someone to clean, up after themselves.

This means they can avoid redesigning their operation so that they don't make 
a mess in the first place, which is the work that needs to be done.

Also we do not actually know what harm that the "mess"  that they created has 
done, how far has the damage gone, and will the repair work be able to fix 
it. I believe that the repair work is essential
but it is only a part of what needs to be done. We must design work and 
production so that waste is not created,, so there is no need to dump it and 
that the land, air and water are not harmed by our
actions. We cannot simply accept money for repair work in lieu of doing it 
right in the first place.

Now perhaps, if the polluter was willing to pay for repair work and for a 
complete overhaul of the operation so that it no longer harms the ecosystem 
it  is part of, then the money would be acceptable.

Bob Ewing
http://www.urbanpermaculture.net



Claude Genest wrote:

>      - does it matter who pays for it and
>      why? Yes, of course...
>
> I'd like to hear more on this train of thought... to play a little devil's 
> advocate : .If we get money to green up the earth in exchange for "them" 
> getting a little greenwashing, is that so wrong ?