permaculture

[Mark <mpludwig@facstaff.wisc.edu>]

At 03:59 PM 12/3/02 -0500, you wrote:
> 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

True to some extent, which is why I oppose the whole system of issuing 
government permits to pollute in the first place.  This issue must become 
more firmly understood as a taking of public assets (air and water) for 
private gain and to the degree possible disallowed.  It is unconscionable 
that Hg pollution from coal fired power plants has ruined the fishery in WI 
and elsewhere.  other example abound...

> 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.

No this mans they have some PR to spin, they can avoid redesign because the 
governments of the world and consumers of their products let them get away 
with it.  Their lieing spin lackeys and sponsorship of politicos is the 
real problem.


> 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.

Actually much of the damage is pretty well documented at least here in the 
USA.  It isn't that hard to calculate the value of lost IQ from Hg 
poisoning, or document damage with GIS and other monitoring.  The problem 
is no one is held to account for these damages, except through occasional 
law suits or enforcements against the most egregious polluters.

> 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.

You make a good point, it is a little meager to patch the place up while it 
gets wrecked someplace else.  Globalization adds a special spin as dirty 
technologies are exported to weakly governed less developed countries.  I 
still say take what you can get from whoever is passing out the funds, just 
don't sell your endorsement in the process (unless it is genuinely 
deserved).  The trick is to keep an open mind and a focus on both fixing 
problems and eliminating future damage, hardly opposing goals and certainly 
possible.  I know from doing the bids that restoration work is expensive; 
there is certainly an incentive there to do the move in the right 
direction, though sometimes it gets out weighed by other economic 
interests.  The later situation crys out for a little regulation, taxation 
etc. to make being a good corporate citizen the least expensive option too.

> 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

I think a lot of good progress could be made here if tax incentives etc. 
were offered for good design and behavior.
M



> 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 ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture

Mark P. Ludwig
Poultry Research Lab
University of Wisconsin -Madison
608-262-1730 WK
608-846-7125 HM