editorial
When t o call a spade a spade Pollution control expenditures are seldom humanitarian gestures; more commonly they are economic necessities
F
rom time to time-possibly often enough to try the patience of our readers-we return on this page to a familiar theme: that pollution control and economics are inseparable topics, have always been inseparable, and are likely to remain inseparable. One wishes, of course, that it were not so. In fact, as one bathes in the soft bubble bath of soothing, sincere-sounding rhetoric, it sometimes seems that the utopian age of altruism and unselfishness has actually arrived. By this time, top executives of every major corporation in the country must surely have vowed eternal allegiance to the principle of “doing the right thing” by ecology and public health. But when the chips are down, when it comes time to commit money for pollution control, we’ve seen again and again that we’re in the same old ball game. What is so frustrating about all this is that society’s rules and regulations force the executive’s hand. Even if a corporate official really wants to control pollution-something we do not doubt in the majority of cases-his primary responsibility is still to protect his company’s financial position. To do otherwise is, in many ways, to betray the trust of the shareholders. We are sufficiently capitalistic-despite suspicions aroused in some readers-to believe that a company with exemplary pollution control practices but no profits is really of no net benefit to the country, since it is likely to be soon out of business. As we’ve said before on this page, unilateral action to control pollution on the part of one company in an industry is most likely to result in a competitive advantage to another, and this is in large measure the rationale for tough, evenhanded enforcement action on the part of government (which, incidentally, we still do not have). Currently, the waters are being muddied even further. Companies have an unfortunate tendency
t o announce pollution control spending plans as if their only interest were an altruistic concern to make the world a better place in which to live. In reality, of course, such spending is usually undertaken out of economic necessity-necessity to avoid fines, court cases, or costly enforcement squabbles, or to stay in the competitive marketplace. Even the country’s scrap dealers are now making a big thing of their having been in “resource recovery” for years before anyone ever heard of that current cliche. Come off it, fellers, you’re in the business for profit; if conditions change so that there’s no profit in it, you’ll be out as quick as a flash. And no one could blame you. Dow Chemical Co.’s chairman Carl Gerstacker made a bit of a splash recently when he said that pollution control was good business. Although his optimism is apparently not shared by everyone, there obviously are instances where there is money to be made, or at least saved. But let’s not kid ourselves that waste can be magically transformed t o profit in all situations. If you can do it, Mr. Businessman, more power to you. If you can’t though, you’d best call a spade a spade, and acknowledge that pollution control spending is a net loss to you because you haven’t yet developed the ingenuity t o turn it into a winner. But please don’t tell us that you’re doing it for the good of all our souls; we just won’t buy it. The truth by itself is justification enough for ou; belief that the battle against pollution is at last being waged, albeit not yet won. In the meantime, we should all be working to ensure the effectiveness of the economic and political system as a spur to further progress.
Volume 6, Number 5, May 1972 393
