I’ve spent the last few weeks scouring the literature in environmental science, economics, political philosophy and ethics for someone who I agree with. But everyone seems to think we cannot survive without pollution. This depends on two assumptions. First, all waste is pollution. Second, waste is bound to get out of hand.
The first statement is false. All waste has a use. At least, all natural waste. In order to maintain soil quality and therefore food quality, manure and urine must be recycled into the land. These are the only two necessary forms of anthropogenic waste.
The rest, which ranges from spoiled food scraps to broken machinery, can be disposed of innocuously. Then again, ultimately we will have to reuse everything. The idea of “wasting” anything implies a limitless supply, which in the case of most resources, one of which is land, we do not actually possess. Eventually, metal will not be mined, it will be reclaimed. Maybe we’ll even start dredging the sea floor for it, given how much of it we’ve discarded into the aqueous environment.
The second statement is obviously true; I will not contest it. But people have been dealing with spilt milk since the dawn of time. Such problems are not always anthropogenic either: consider natural disasters. People can handle the foibles and screw ups of others. So if all natural waste is useful, and if industrial waste is unnecessary, or can be degraded into something natural, then we don’t need pollution.
I’ve been discussing this with many great intellects of our student body (most notably Jacob Winegrad, Matthew Baum, and Charles Van Rees), and they consistently present one objection. How is this utopian, pollution-free world going to be regulated?
This runs into another question: how do we even define pollution? There are many definitions, but all seem to be as complicated as they are incomplete. I will define pollution as any alteration of property in a way undesired by its owner.
Under current U.S. law, if your neighbor pisses on your lawn, you can sue them. If they buy 100,000 hogs and have them piss all over their lawn, and it contaminates your well, the issue is more complicated. Unless the hog urine contamination causes you “to incur costs” you cannot sue your neighbor. There is such a thing as a nuisance lawsuit: suing someone for causing undue nuisance to you.
However, this does not extend to all forms of pollution. I believe this paradigm of American and global politics needs to be altered. Your neighbor has no more right to piss on your lawn than to have a 100,000 hogs piss on his lawn and contaminate your air with their ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, or your water with their urine. Currently, they are allowed to, and can continue to do so as long as they are willing to pay the fines for it. But you wouldn’t let someone keep harassing someone so long as they paid a fine. You’d put them in jail.
This is inconsistent.
Somehow, this is the paradigm American law currently functions under. We are allowed to pollute our environment, so long as it’s sufficiently profitable.
I believe that all such pollution should be illegal.
The ramifications of this are vast. It is an issue that even many ecologists do not consider possible. It is certainly possible, whether or not we are willing to achieve it. Humanity has existed without pollution before. Arguments that it is now impossible simply assert that it is not plausible without significant changes to our lifestyle. We may not want to give up our delicious lifestyle, but when its maintenance degrades another’s environment and health, how can we not give it up? The question comes down to eliminating our consumerist mentality, and focusing on what we need, rather than what we want.
