![]() |
Home
Newsletters
July 1973 | ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Pollution Control Costs DebatedPOLLUTION CONTROL COSTS DEBATED Delegates at the May ECOPUSH CONFERENCE, "FRESHER AIR, PURE WATER - WHAT'S THE COST, WHO SHOULD PAY?", heard various views from business, government, University, and citizen groups. Ultimately it was concluded -- to no one's surprise -- that the average citizen, either as a consumer or taxpayer, would bear the burden of paying for anti-pollution control devises and programs. What may have surprised some conference attendees were the costs necessary to implement and maintain such programs and devices. Dr. James Mak, economist at the University of Hawaii, illustrated this point with the example of anti-pollution devices for cars and their installation. The total cost is approximately $750, of which the consumer will pay 85% when he buys the car. Richard Bell from the Hawaiian Electric Company and Edward J. Lui from the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association both quoted amounts ranging in hundreds of thousands of dollars which would be required to undertake programs adequate to meet state and federal standards. Lui also mentioned that costs of pollution control resulted in the shut-down of one sugar company. Two speakers emphasized that the estimated total costs should be weighed against the apparent benefit to society. Many said consideration should be given to the individuals who would supposedly benefit from such programs
and controls -- how many people, what types, etc? Which groups should bear the burden of paying for such programs: the rich,
the poor, private industry, government?
|
![]() | Top Home Newsletters | ![]() |