GuidoWorld

ECOLOGY

Concerns over the adverse effects of industrialization have been with us for near 200 years. Most of the early complaints focused on inhumane working conditions such as poor lighting, long working hours, inhospitable temperatures and the like. Early on in the industrial revolution coal miners protested the lack of effort employers placed on rectifying the dangers of their occupation from asphyxiation to long-term respiratory problems.

The effects of pollution on the non-working environment went generally unnoticed for a number of years. Those who did register complaints were thought of as alarmists, extremists, or just plain naive to the realities of social progress. The majority of people felt that the benefits of industrialization far outweighed whatever drawbacks industrial pollution may entail. No system was perfect, but it would be silly to disregard a superior mode of production because of a few flaws.

Though scientists had been looking at the earth as a fragile self-contained environment for years, it wasn’t till the late 60′s that public concern over the adverse effects of industrial waste and pollution came to the forefront. As studies of the environment intensified this new science adopted the name of ecology. Quickly the ecological movement forged its way into public awareness. Environmental injustices shared the stage with the anti-war, free love and civil rights movements which dominated an era of social change.

Protests regarding ecological crimes and issues dwindled along with the anti-war demonstations. The Vietnam war did involve some important ecological questions such as the use of napalm and agent orange, and the long-term environmnetal damage caused by intense bombing. Yet, this alone cannot explain why the ecological movement lost its momentum after the war.

The early ecological movement focused on three areas, nuclear waste, water and air pollution. In the 70′s corporate America did a fine job of diffusing the ecological issue by a combination of PR, economic threats and surface compliance.

First, the major industries including the utility companies which were under seige for their harmful practices began generating statistics which refuted many of the “unfounded allegations” made against them. Their arguments were passive and did not openly attack their accusers. Instead, they depicted themselves as dedicated family men who were just as concerned about the future of the planet as anyone else. Though “unjustly” accused of being greedy and self-serving they admitted the need for improvement and highly promoted every change towards a “cleaner” industry they made.

It became fashionable for such industries to improve their image by building wild life sanctuaries and buying land to be used as nature reserves. Utility company commericals began showing their facilities amidst blue skies as a few graceful white birds circled above their environmental friendly reactors. Other corporations not willing to risk being outdone, started building green, manicured “industrial parks” and dressed up their factories in arboreal prom dresses.

Great measures were taken to make sure that key factors actually did improve. The water in many areas did indeed begin to lose its brown or grey hue, and the emissions from smoke stacks no longer spewed forth a visual black death. After a few years of gussying up for the public the corporate stategy became more aggressive. Indsutry sources proclaimed that the water and air pollution was not only reduced, but was regressing.

Throughout this image transformation nuclear power plants continued to be a black-eye unable to be disguised. Utility companies responded by raising rates so that customers could help them re-tool their industry. Coupled with this economic form of extortion was the psychological intimidation of the industy stating that without nuclear power plants our energy needs could never be met. Even if this claim were true, the utility companies failed to mention that it was industrial, not residential usage which was causing this potential problem.

The above mentioned strategies worked well. Not willing to pay higher utility bills or suffer through power outages, the public outcry over nuclear energy began to subside. The utility companies commitment to nuclear energy began to wane on its own, when they realized how inefficent nuclear power palnts were. Nuclear plants built in the 60′s and 70′s had a relatively short life span, and utility companies realized that the amount of energy they produced did not justify the amount of energy they consumed through their construction and maintenance.

Some streams, rivers and lakes may have begun to look better, but their pollution has increased over the years. For every chemical an industry reports decreasing in the water supply a number of other toxic chemicals are increasing. Yet, during the last couple of decades discontent over ecological concerns have been relegated to environmental groups and not the general public.

Due to the dilligence of corporate America ecological concerns all but dropped out of mainstream discussion. The recent rebirth of the topic has in fact been fostered by corporate commercial enterprises and not by any consumer or global watch organizations. Today’s trendy brand of ecology focuses on conservation and re-cycling and is aggressively sold to the middle and upper-middle class “yuppies”.

Ecology has itself become a very lucrative industry. A plethora of products are marketed to the health and socially conscious individual. This is a world of recycled paper products, vitamins, health and organic foods, new age health and beauty aids, and an assortment of gimmicks and machines which appeal to the environmental consciousness individual. All of these products exorbitantly priced for those with a sizable and commercially exploitable disposable income.

If one takes a serious look at any one of these industries they will be sure to find as many ecological harms being generated as gains. The concept of recycling existed since the sixties but was suppressed because of its economic infeasibility. Only after it was designed in a fashion which allowed it to become a lucrative industry did it resurface. Rather than being designed to get rid of waste and pollution our current recylcing campaign is economically dependent on these ills.

At first glance the recycling of paper products seems to be environmentally helpful due to its saving of American forests. Yet, the aesthetic and wildlife gains have to be weighed against the damage incurred in the recycling process. A great amount of toxic chemicals are often used in leaching out the inks from newsprint and reprocessing most other commercial paper products.

Toxic chemicals and waste are by-products of not only paper, but almost any form of recylcing. The average ecologically concerned consumer is fairly unaware of the damage our recycling industry is inflicting on the environment.

The entire recylcing industry, being a commercial venture, is dependent on waste for its existence. If we truly were to conserve our resources or become more efficient, no financially viable recylcling program could exist. Much of the recylcing industry centers around the reuse of containers and packaging materials. Using and reusing these materials more efficiently or sparingly would destroy any hope of the recylcing plants turning a profit.

Proponents of organic farming claim that the loss of crops to pests and disease is minimal when chemical prevention is replaced by more natural methods. Many organic famers claim that any expense incurred through the loss of crops is more than made up by the money saved through avoiding the tremendous costs of herbicides and pesticides. Yet, if this is the case, then why are organic crops so expensive?

The exorbitant price of organically grown food makes it impossible for many people to afford. This means that while a few wealthier individuals satisfy their ecological consciousness and personal desire for healthy food the rest must endure the chemical assault on their digestive systems. While the wealthier middle class feel like they are doing their part, the bulk of American farming is polluting the water table at a frightening pace.

Organic produce is sold and marketed as a luxury item. It is part of a marketing image including bottled water, vitamins, herbal teas and medicines, exotic coffees and an assortment of varied health foods, diets and magic elixers. Many, (such as wines, coffees and teas) feature very unhealthy ingredients. Many bottled waters have in fact been found to be inferior in quality to the regional tap water. Once again many consumers of these products mistakenly assume they are both healthy and environmentally friendly.

The possible benefits of organic food and the recycling industry are both minimized through their being commercial enterprises. All businesses (no matter how sincere their original intentions) in order to survive, must adapt to the realities of the marketplace. Where monetary concerns dominate, all other values become secondary.

The success of every commercial venture is dependent on making a profit. Yet, what is the relationship of waste to profit? Does waste contribute or interfere with the commercial success of a business venture?

Keeping down one’s overhead is important when trying to generate profit. Focusing your attention on anything not directly related to the product you are manufacturing, producing or harvesting is costly and eats away at your profits. Your profits dwindle each moment or penny you spend on the disposing or handling of any material not essential to your merchandise. Therefore, when your only concern is profit, it pays to be wasteful.

If the waste accompanying or caused by the production of your merchandise is toxic or detrimental to the environment, then the treating or proper disposal of these pollutants can be particularly costly. Increasing a profit margin or remaining competitive in the market place often demands a business to be wasteful or to work around the standards set down by environmental agencies such as the EPA.

If a product were sold for its “true value” then no profit could be made. Profit is generated when a product is sold for more than what it costs to produce. The more inflated the price is in terms of real value, the more profit available. This inflated value, being unnecessary to the product, is a form of waste. Therefore, from a truly logical point of view all profit is a form of waste.

An equation demonstrating the relationship between profit and waste would look like the following:

Profit=surplus=excess=waste.

In other words all profit is a surplus. Every surplus being unecessary is an excess, and excess is waste. This equation may seem extreme and simplistic, yet its basic message carries a lot of truth. All profit is excess waste. Profitable ecology is an oxymoron of the most basic kind.

Competition is hailed as one of the greatest features of the free enterprise system. Through competition the highest quality goods are supposed to be produced at the lowest price. Yet, in reality this is not the case. Seldom does a maverick business surface which significantly underbids his competitors. In the marketplace there are accepted standards of profit and price which seldom vary. As one example it is remarkable how no matter how many long distance telephone carriers are on the market they still keep their rates with in a few cents of each other. Especially, when one considers the differences they all claim to have regarding technology, overhead, etc.

Occassionally corporate collusion is exposed demonstrating how businesses work together to keep prices at a mutually lucrative level. Industries such as the automotive, oil, tobacco, cereal, and utility companies though never admitting to collusion do respond to the accusations by offering temporary savings, rebates and special offers.

What competition does produce is another form of waste, product duplication. In a competitive marketplace, similar products are overproduced resulting in many items never being sold. Items not sold are then discarded (wasted). Industries which fail to compete fold, liquidate or are bought out by flourishing businesses. More often than not, their factories, stores and unpurchased merchandise become waste. Even if an industry is bought out by a competitor many of its usable resources, like stores, will be discarded because they do not reflect the image of the new owners.

Competition forces businesses to become vigilant opportunists looking to capitalize on any loophole. Many businesses avert taking loses by disposing of their surplus and waste in inexpensive ways. One way is to find a charity which is need of the materials you need to cast off. This not only makes the “donation” tax deductible, but spares a business the cost of disposal.

Our economic system, like nature, has its parasites and scavengers feeding off the waste of others. The recycling industry is just one link in the industrial food chain which survives off waste. Yet, the presence of these scavengers reinforces rather than ends the wasteful practices of commercial enterprise.

What can a business do which is threatened by the revelation that their product is toxic or unhealthy? Well, there are a number of things you can do when profit is your only concern.

The first thing you can do is to contest the information which “proves” that your product if harmful. Everything from the tobacco industry to Dupont have spent a great deal of time generating statistics which contest or atleast confuse the dangers of their products. Yet, such a position is both logical and necessary when faced with the realities of commercial competition.

If a publicity campaign fails, or the crack down on your product is particularly severe, you can always find a new market. When high levels of DDT were found in baby formula, the infected products were carted off to third world nations. When pesticide regulations stiffened, these products became heavily marketed in less restricted markets such as the orient. Corporate America’s reply to the growing concern over tobacco is to expand its foriegn market. The close ties between the US government and the tobacco industry continues as our government increases the pressure on foreign nations to purchase American tobacco as part of larger trade agreements.

Waste and inefficiency are in fact essential elements in many American businesses from small non-profits to our nation’s defense department. Monies from federal, state, private and local sources our doled out to such agencies on an at-need basis through allocations and annual budgets. Most agencies which are funded in this manner standardly are required to submit a budget justifying the money they are asking to receive.

In order to justify getting the same amount, or more money than the last time, a petitioning agency must demonstrate sufficient monetary need. Therefore, it is all but mandatory for these agencies to spend all the money they were alloted. An agency dependent on such contracts will often fabricate expenses, invite others to over charge for their services, and engage in unnecessary end of the fiscal year spending binges in order to deplete their funds. This method of doing business breeds ineficiency, waste and deceit. When our nation’s largest budgetary items such as defense spending are premised on intentional inefficiency, the ill-effects are destined to reverberate through our entire economy.

Any drastic cuts in the defense budget would adversely effect the livelihood of millions of Americans. Yet, after the downfall of the USSR it is becoming harder to justify our huge military budget. Despite the removal of the imminent threat of communism, our defense spending by far continues to be the taxpayers major expense.

Our defense department and its contracting agencies have become very dependent on the hundreds of billions of dollars they receive from our government. The only way to validate their huge price tag is for them to spend the money they are allocated. Though not an easy task, our defense department and contracting businesses are doing a remarkable job of using up their allocated funds.

A sizable portion of funds is spent in research and development. This sector spends a great deal of money inventing new generations of high-tech weapons and military hardware. Yet, the stockpiling of weapons, whether they be new or old, does not generate a profit for any of the corporate giants dominating the defense industry. Many of the planes, missles, chemical and conventional arms, and low and high-tech hardware must be sold and distributed in order to maintain a positive cash-flow.

Selling and distributing military hardware and arms is a very lucrative business. Without such sales our military would not procure the necessary funds it needs to insure that our military continues to be the world’s strongest and most advanced. Even our governmental doves admit that our national security depends upon our military being the best trained and equipped fighting force in the world.

You will find a preponderance of US made arms being used by both sides in almost every battle in every war waged around the globe. Over a trillion dollars are spent each year on arms. The sale of these weapons is necessary for many reasons. First, without these sales our defense contractors would fold causing many Americans to lose their jobs, and entire communities to suffer. Second, the money alloted to our military would similarly dwindle greatly reducing our national security. Third, if we did not make these sales other nation’s would, thereby only increasing their power and resources as our’s deplete.

The selling of arms generates the profits our defense contractors need in order to insure we continue to be the world leader in researcb and development. Only through dominating in this field can we be assured that our technology stays a step ahead of every other nation. With this dominance our security is maintained, for other nation’s buying our cast-offs will always be a few generations behind our latest technology.

No matter how sincere our nation is in its efforts to promote and defend world peace and freedom, monetary considerations often make our nation engage in actions which are in opposition to these ideals. Concerns over the ecological damage inflicted upon the earth by the use of conventional and chemical weapons, and the unnecessary loss of human life they engender, do not outweigh the economic benefits gained through the sale of these military products.

Our nation’s liberal use of toxic chemicals threatens not only the air we breathe and the water we drink, but the quality of life of people around the globe for generations to come. We use these chemicals for a host of reasons including; convenience, protection, progress and survival. We use them in industry, warfare, agricluture, hygiene, medicine and assorted forms of health care. The role of chemicals in our lives became pervasive shortly after the discovery of penicillin and the success of a few vaccines. Drug companies capitalizing on these medical miracles began an all out war on the germ. Germs were lurking everywhere, and without the use of chemicals they were sure to infect our children and spouses. Our only defense against these invisible invaders was to create an antiseptic world.

In the marketing strategies of the drug companies, commercial chemicals were an army of good-guys out to defeat the evil bacterial invaders. Though many of their claims were false or highly misleading these fear merchants quickly transformed a few small chemicals into huge conglomerates. American medicine cabinets became chock full of remedies for every ill imaginable.

The war on germs was waged on all fronts from personal hygiene and health care, to every square inch of the family house, garden, office and factory. Poisoned children and pets were viewed as unfortunate casualties as were people addicted to perscription medications. People’s fears of germs remained sufficient enough to block out the fact that the benefits of most chemicals were minimal at best. The chemical companies few successes more than validated their escalating role in American life.

Concerns over pollution which peaked in the 60′s and 70′s still remain today. Public support of chemical companies and the belief in their humanistic cause has dwindled. Studies showing the ineffectiveness and even harm of most non-perscription medications, antispetics, cleaning products and disinfectants are now commonplace. Yet, despite these set backs the chemical companies continue to enjoy great wealth and position.

Not only do chemical companies overstate their effectiveness and downplay their potential damage, but they continue to convince and scare people into using their products. These chemicals threaten our health and may even be stripping our immune system of its ability to ward off disease. Yet, despite warnings labels on thousands of commercial products the average consumer still believes their lives are enriched and protected by the liberal use of dangerous chemicals.

People scour their pots and pans and clean their dishes with chemicals unfit for consumption. In an effort to scrape off a relatively harmless piece of dried carbon the average homemaker will rub petroleum based detergents and steel wool fibers into the cooking surface of a frying pan. Now which do you think is more harmful to eat from, a discolored pan or one saturated with harsh chemicals?

No one contests that the wise use of chemicals can be beneficial to the quality of life. Yet, because of the surpemacy of money, many businessmen are willing to downplay, ignore and even promote the irresponsible use of chemicals. Chemical and pharmaceutical companies are just one breed of fear merchants who place profit above the welfare of their customers.

The US, though highly urbanized, is one of the few nations which has some sizable and inhabitable wide open spaces. This allows our nation to underestimate the practical and ecological dangers of over-population. Yet, even though we have the space, every rise in world population has grave consequences on the global ecology.

Every person born generates waste which pollutes our air and water. In already overcrowded lands increases in population necessitate the destruction of forests, wildlife and other natural resources to make room for more bodies. Pollution, poor living conditions and overcrowding spawn epidemics and new diseases which spread around the globe. In industrialized nations the waste each person generates is greatly amplified by energy needs and usage. Once again economic concerns show themselves to be ecologically destructive. In the US, construction, especially of new houses, is the leading indicator of a healthy economy. Our economy flourishes the more we build while our global environment deteriorates. The longer we base our economy, or have it be dependent on the construction of new houses the quality of our living environment will continue to deteriorate.

Many of the dynamics of capitalism require that world population continues to increase. An expanding population produces a steadily increasing consumer base able to be converted into an ever expanding profit margin. Simply stated, a market increase brings profit and a shrinking consumer base spells economic disaster. Therefore, a steady increase in population is one of the surest ways of insuring economic progress.

The economic forces promoting overpopulation intensify as life expectancy increases. The longer people live past their prime working years, the greater the need for younger people to support them. A top heavy population in which the non-working aged outnumbered the workers would greatly imperil the standard of living for all. Efforts to raise the age of retirement will do little to releive the economic necessities for more workers.

The logic of capitalism fosters an endless spiral of increasing global population. The number of productive adults must increase to help support the ever increasing portion of the populace retired or unable to work. The number of children must likewise increase to function both as a consumer base generating profit and future work force able to provide for their aging parents, grandparents and great-grandparents.

An expanded population places increased demands on the amount of water and land needed. Pollution is endemic to even the most basic of human existence, and significant ecological damage is inflicted by even the most primitive of societies. Each year more and more of the earth is utilized as a garbage dump for the accumulation of human waste.

Capitalistic enterprises, needing to show increase earnngs each year, are not satifisfied with the status quo. Economic progress is accomplished by making sure that the number of products purchased by consumers increases. Our economy’s dependency on increased consmption of goods prevents even the most aggressive recylcing practices from staving off continued ecological damage. Discarded, replaced and malfunctioned personal and industrial goods (appliances, furniture, clothing, diapers, water heaters, etc.) continue to demand larger tracts of land to be used for land fills. Capitalism not only fosters the need to produce more and more objects to be consumed, but has a need for these objects to be regularly discarded. Durable objects are a definite problem for a society built on profit through consumption. This problem is worked around by a number of methods.

Some products are discarded because they break-down rather quickly. Some, like food, are quickly consumed. Others are replaced because a newer or better version appears. Some goods are replaced because of aesthetic reasons such as changes in fashion. Some goods are disposed of because the cost of buying a new one is competitive to repairing the old one.

Many products and high-tech machines composed of inexpensive materials and parts could be repaired easily and inexpensively. In order to maximize profits such industries go to great lenghts to prevent such economic repairs from occuring. Some industries such as electronic firms will forbid anyone but their “qualified professionals” from repairing their products. Such products must be shipped and bear a hefty fee to even be looked at. Most high-tech electronic repairs usually involve the replacement of a single silicon chip costing a couple of dollars. Yet, such machines are purposely made in such a fashion as to necessitate the replacement of the entire chassis rather than the single defective chip. In this way the repair expense is inflated enough to make replacement the most reasonable decision for the consumer.

The bulk of business decisions which prove to be wasteful or harmful to the environment are not made by greedy opportunists or self-serving conmen. Most people have decent intentions, but are only responding to how business is done in our society. Yet, at some point in time it becomes necessary for us to take some responsibility for our behavior and to question the sanity of making money the primary goal of society. Saying that there is no other way, or that money has always ruled the world is both untrue and a cop out.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post