permaculture

[Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>]

At 01:59 AM 12/4/02 -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
> 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.


It could also mean that a good pc designer could convince them that in the 
long run it makes economic sense to do it right the first time rather than 
fixing it multiple times.

Even though I share your cynical view of corporate despoilers, any foot in 
the door is a possible sale of good stewardship.  We have had this 
discussion in the past of the taint of sell out.  If one is worried about 
selling out, then one shouldn't engage in that particular 
temptation.  That's why I don't have a TV!  But any opportunity to do earth 
repair, while at the same time getting paid for it, is fine with me.


> 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.

Perhaps they have to be shown the error of their ways before they are able 
to take the next step of reform.
Scott