Re: (All) Waste Prevention Technology

[adam davis <adavis@hooked.net>]

> I think you are both absolutely wrong.  Many people in industry realize
> that they live in this world too and are looking for ways to reduce the
> adverse impact of their activity on the world.  This includes efficiency in
> waste, risk, materials consumption and labor.  In a "down-sizing" oriented
> economy, this is a way to survival as a company and as an individual, as
> well as, as a society.
> 
> In ten years of work in what we used to call waste minimization and later
> called P2, I never met a front-line engineer who was not interested in
> reducing the waste produced by his/her operation, in increasing energy or
> materials efficiency, or in improving the product with the same inputs and
> fewer waste outputs.  Some had been burned by management refusal to
> consider investment in the engineering or capital that would be required
> (sometimes known as milking the cash cow until it dies); but none were
> opposed to doing what they could within their job description to make their
> operation more efficient.
> 
> Also during those same years, I had much success in getting plants and
> companies to implement true pollution prevention, including materials
> efficiency, recycling, energy efficiency, risk reduction, etc.
> 
> The largest barrier I encountered was EPA and their definition of pollution
> prevention.  One client discovered a way to make a critical chemical at the
> point of use, instead of in a large dedicated plant.  Since the material
> was hazardous to transport and handle, and became contaminated and unusable
> fairly easily, the change would reduce pollution greatly, on a company wide
> and world wide basis.  However, the amount of waste produced in the plant
> that used the chemical would increase slightly.  EPA's response was that
> this could not be considered waste minimization or pollution prevention,
> because there would be an increase in one location, regardless that there
> was a larger decrease in the total.  What eventually swayed the company was
> the opportunity to eliminate the risk of a significant transportation or
> storage release of a highly toxic chemical, but EPA's response was of no
> help in getting it done.
> 
> 
> Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D.
> CWRU School of Law
> J.D. Class of 1999
> rec3@po.cwru.edu
> (216) 991-6837 (Thursdays and Fridays only)

Sure, Ralph, there are lots of people in business who are interested in 
implementing P2, and are successful.  But it's hard to see where you 
disagree with the statement I made.  The reason they are successful is 
because the economic incentives support their goal of increased 
efficiency.

In the case of primary extractive industry, which I was clearly 
referring to, and where the most serious major environmental impact 
takes place (ie. clear cutting, strip mining, drift net fishing, etc.) 
the incentive is for faster and greater extraction.  I know what I'm 
talking about, because I work in an industry which also suffers from 
incentives which promote inefficiency and wastefulness.  We are paid by 
the ton: think about it.  

One of the reasons I signed on to the P2 listserv is because I'm 
interested in taking some of the lessons learned from the P2 community 
in manufacturing, where the economic incentives often naturally promote 
material and energy efficiency.

Adam Davis
Waste Management, Inc.
adavis@hooked.net
efficiency