In 1990, the US government put forth a pollution prevention act:
(a) Findings
The Congress finds that:
(1) The United States of America annually produces millions of tons of pollution and spends tens of billions of dollars per year controlling this pollution.
(2) There are significant opportunities for industry to reduce or prevent pollution at the source through cost-effective changes in production, operation, and raw materials use. Such changes offer industry substantial savings in reduced raw material, pollution control, and liability costs as well as help protect the environment and reduce risks to worker health and safety.
(3) The opportunities for source reduction are often not realized because existing regulations, and the industrial resources they require for compliance, focus upon treatment and disposal, rather than source reduction; existing regulations do not emphasize multi-media management of pollution; and businesses need information and technical assistance to overcome institutional barriers to the adoption of source reduction practices.
(4) Source reduction is fundamentally different and more desirable than waste management and pollution control. The Environmental Protection Agency needs to address the historical lack of attention to source reduction.
(5) As a first step in preventing pollution through source reduction, the Environmental Protection Agency must establish a source reduction program which collects and disseminates information, provides financial assistance to States, and implements the other activities provided for in this chapter.
(b) Policy
The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.
Definitions:
(A) The term ''source reduction'' means any practice which -
(i) reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and
(ii) reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The term includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control.
(B) The term ''source reduction'' does not include any practice which alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral to and necessary for the production of a product or the providing of a service.
Obviously this act was not reinforced effectively. In 1999, a group of investigators went to the “Garbage Patch” and found that the ratio of plastic to plankton was of 6:1. After a recent visit to the “Garbage Patch”, the ratio had increased to 100:1!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If only people actually followed this act, there would be much less pollution in the world. But I guess it can't be enforced quite like acts were before the American revolution. There are too many people who are apathetic about the environment because they know no matter how bad they treat it, the effects won't be seen until later generations. That really is selfish of people, but I guess they have no motivation to protect Earth. Perhaps the government could give more incentive to the public to "go green". My ideas are to monetarily reward people that always recycle and sort their garbage.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many people in the world. Who do you reward? That's kind of hard. I agree though, it seems like we don't see the results of our actions, and most of us don't think of the long term consequences. It IS selfish, because polluting the environment and mistreating it means that the next generation will have to carry on the burdens of what our generation did.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important for influential people to take on the "go green" movement. They are role models, and have a big impact on our world. If they do it, most likely, people will follow. It's like a dominoe effect. If more people do it, then others will be interested and want to be involved. I think of it as a good sort of "peer pressure."