editorial Build a b e t t e r mousetrap Incentives to stimulate development of newer and better pollution control methods are at last on the horizon
l f you were to think of one word to describe the present state of pollution control technology, chances are that the word “sophisticated” would not spring to your lips. On the other hand, the word “primitive” might. It’s no secret that pollution control has traditionally drawn upon old concepts, old equipment, and the least skilled work force available. It is eye-opening, for instance, to visit a sewage treatment plant in the midst of a booming industrial area. While industrial plants embody the latest manufacturing technology, all decked out with intricate control systems and instrumentation panels, the sewage treatment plant receiving industry’s effluent, in contrast, is often overloaded, understaffed, and woefully deficient in, the sort of technology that could be brought to bear on waste treatment. This diversity most probably represents, according to one fashionable school of thought, a mute indictment of society for its misplaced sense of values. But for whatever reason, pollution control technology has evolved at a snail’s pace, showing only modest growth at a time when’screaming about the environment has reached a cacophonous level. One reason for this slow growth, we suspect, is the almost complete lack of incentive for the development of new technology. Whereas manufacturing technology is motivated by competitive needs of the marketplace (although involving new investment, it is adopted to increase efficiency in the anticipation of greater profits), new pollution control technology-both in and out of industry-generally represents a more expensive way of doing something the purchaser doesn’t want to do in the first place. If the potential buyer does not have to make a purchase, then there is obviously no great momentum behind development of ways to combat pollution. (This is a theme we frequently pursue on this page, possibly to the point of tedium, but many of today’s pollution problems hinge on the lack of a pressing reason to control pollution.) With this pessimism in mind, one might ask why this year’s ES&T Pollution Control Directory (this issue, page 945) contains so many new company names-a fair question. Many new companies in the pollution control field are offering novel, sophisticated,
and frequently exciting concepts in technology. Few, however, are selling very much, and some have confided to us that if they do not receive orders soon, they will be out of business. To some extent this is due to faulty estimates of the market (a factor that has, to be sure, caused many a business in other fields to come to an abrupt and probably deserved end), but it is also due, in our opinion, to the simple fact that sophistication is expensive. In the few instances where sophistication processes have actually sold-sewage treatment by oxygenation comes to mind-the purchaser was not dazzled by sophistication but impressed by the likelihood of cost savings. Prospects for the development of newer and better pollution control technology do not appear to be entirely dead. A very hopeful sign, one that may encourage the purveyors of new techniques for pollution control, appears in the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, which passed the U.S. Senate in October. This bill required that all new stationary sources of pollution-that is, all new industrial plantsinstall the “latest available control technology, processes, operating methods . . . ,” Implicit in this requirement, according to Congressional sources, is that costs shall not be a factor in deciding which technology is the latest and best. Although this particular section of the bill received very little discussion or comment when it was in the committee stage (it was upstaged by a section on automotive exhaust control requirements), it appears to set the scene for much wider application of newer and more efficient pollution control techniques than we have seen in the past. Similar language is contained in a water pollution control bill (S. 3687), sponsored by Sen. Edmund Muskie (D.-Me.), that will come up at the next session of Congress. The message for those who wish to sell their wares to polluters is clear: Build a better mousetrap. No matter how much it costs, the time is ripe when the customer will have to buy it; and if it can save him money to boot, he may buy it tomorrow.
Volume 4, Number 11, November 1970 877
