Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / Feb. 7, 1972, edition 1 / Page 10
Part of University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Hidden Savings from a Cieaner America BY THOMAS L KIMBALL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDUFE FEDERATION AMERICANS CAN HAVE a cleaner America by 1980 — and save $12 billion a year at the same time. This is no pipe dream. It is the sober estimate of responsible environmental experts. This dramatic figure was brought to light after intensive digging by a Na tional Wildlife Federation investigative team which interviewed scores of envi ronmental experts and economists dur ing recent months. The pollution arithmetic is simple: 1. Nationwide bill for damages from air and water pollution is estimated at $28.9 billion annually. Your family’s share of that is $481. 2. A reasonable cleanup program will require an investment of $10.2 billion annually. Your family’s share: $170. 3. But this cleanup will reduce pollu tion damages by a whopping $22.2 bil lion! Your family’s share: $370. 4. You pay out $170 for cleanup and reduce your pollution damage bill by $370, for a net savings of $200 in your annual expenditures. More importantly, cleaner air and cleaner water give a new lease on life to all creatures, be they eagles, oysters, or men. Here’s how we arrived at these startling figures: AIR POLLUTION: The President’s own Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) reports that the current air cleanup campaign will cost $23.7 billion between 1970 and 1975. Economists es timate this will reduce air pollution dam ages by two-thirds by 1976. Polluted air causes the following dam ages, says the CEQ: human health, $6 billion; materials and vegetation, $4.9 billion; lowering of property values, $5.2 billion. Some economists believe these figures are too conservative because they do not include shortened life due to illness or loss of scenic values. One expert told us: “If we continue to establish comprehen sive air pollution standards — and if we have the courage to enforce them — by 1976 we can reduce air pollution by 80 to 90 percent!” WATER POLLUTION: The story here is equally dramatic, though specif ic figures are unavailable and Federal officials are almost embarrassed by the lack of data. Nevertheless, th6 Federation talked with economists who have researched this problem for years. They estimate that water pollution costs the United States $12.8 billion annually. They also believe pollution damages can be re duced 90 percent by 1980. Polluted water costs you and tbe na tion untold billions in reduced output, increased expenses, higher taxes, and, most importantly, a generally poorer life: The polluted Delaware estuary alone represents $350 million in lost recrea tional opportunities. One-fifth of the na tion’s shellfish beds are closed because of water pollution. A single child bom retarded because of chemical contami nation of the water his mother drinks can cost society $250,000 in remedial training and custodial care. These figures and conclusions raise in evitable questions: Are these estimates anywhere near ac curate? Economists and environmental experts freely admit that research data is skimpy. Some contend tbe government has been derelict in not running retum-on-invest- ment studies similar to those which all industries do before committing their dollars to any new project. However, our sources defend the figures in this ar ticle as conservative — both in damages and in ultimate savings. (I invite anyone who believes he has more reliable figures to speak up — environmental cleanup must be a team effort.) How you will save money from cleanup of air pollution • Government has no money except yours. Business passes on costs in higher prices. So you. the taxpayer- consumer, pay all of the $28.9 billion pollution bill. • “What an investment opportunity! Where else can you improve your quality of life and save money at the same time?" Total for United States Your Share As Head of Family POLLUTION DAMAGES IN 1972 Air pollution now does this much damage each year... $16.1 billion /'Drkcc A cleanup program can eonwm reduce this damage 66% FROM ijy -1970 annual gross CLEANUP savings will be ... $10.7 billion irs minus COST OF CLEANUP Deduct from future gross savings the annual cost of cleanup ... $3.9 billion *65 equals NET ANNUAL SAVINGS So in 1976 the air cleanup will result in net annual savings of... $6.8 billion *113 YOUR FAMILY can save $113 a year with a cleanup campaign that will reduce pollution damages 66 percent. These figures were developed by an investigative team of the National Wildlife Federation. Reprinted from National Wildlife Magazine, permission granted. Reproductions courtesy of NWM. that transcends dollars and cents. Hap pily, pollution cleanup meets both cri teria — it helps improve our quality of life, and it saves us money. When does the^ taxpayer-consumer start getting back the money he’s in vested? Air savings should be fully effective by 1976; water savings, by 1980. Based on our experts’ figures, the Federation estimates the average family must invest a total of approximately $500 by 1975, without return. But by 1979 tbe family will recover this $500; and by 1980 each family will have an annual savings of $200. But will people make this investment? Yes. For more than 200 years Ameri cans have been profit motivated. Show them where they can make or save a buck, and you’ll get action. But I hope that dollar economics will never be our sole guide. Quality of life is a concern But what about those estimates of $105 billion to clean up pollution? That’s the figure given in the report of the President’s Council on Environ mental Quality. But, by the Council’s own admission, this figure is inflated since is contains a $43.5 billion estimate designated for solid waste disposal. And, to quote the CEQ, “This figure greatly overstates the costs required for meeting a higher standard of environmental qual ity, since the overwhelming bulk of those costs is for garbage pickup, a service tra ditionally provided in urban areas (and currently being paid for).” Is pollution cleanup on schedule? The Clean Air Act of 1970 has suffi cient strength to accomplish goals set forth in this article. Our air pollution fig ures are valid — assuming these IFS: IF current strict standards are not lessened ... IF timetables set forth are met... IF regulations are enforced. Water pollution figures are based >” the Water Quality Act of 1965. Ho"'" ever, in my opinion, this effort to clea’* up bas been a failure to date becaiis® standards are not uniform or complex® and state enforcement has lagged. example: Only 27 states have “No fuf' ther degradation” clauses. Current hop*^ is the new Water Pollution Bill whie*' will probably pass Congress early this year. It sets up strict Federal standards for effluent discharge by the industih' polluter and provides for tough enforce' ment. How you will save money from cleaiui|) of water |K)lliition Figures on pollution damages and savings from resulting cleanup are scarce. A crash program is badly needed to get at the facts. Is environmental cleanup a passing fad? Will r.ithRnn nav In a /L/ciooi//y i Will citizens pay to clean up? m Total for United States Your Share A* Head of FaxN^ POLLUTION DAMAGES IN 1972 Water pollution now does this much damage each year... $12.8 billion *213 GROSS SAVINGS FROM CLEANUP A cleanup program can reduce this damage 90% by 1980. Then annual gross savings will be ... $11.5 billion *192 minus COST OF CLEANUP Deduct from future gross savings the annua! cost of cleanup ... $6.3 billion *I05 equals NET ANNUAL SAVINGS So in 1980 water cleanup will result in net annual savings of... $5.2 billion YOUR FAMILY can save $87 a year with a cleanup campaign that will reduce water pollution damages by 90 percent. These figures wer developed by an investigative team of the National Wildlife Federation. ) What can an individual do? Be informed. Do not be misled hy sweeping statements, for example, th«i^ “pollution cleanup will cost too much- or by simplistic slogans like “What of you want — fish or jobs?” Attend puhh^^ hearings which are provided for by hi"|’ Remember that both air and water p‘’ ^ lution laws also provide that you aS ‘ citizen can bring a lawsuit direc against a polluter, or the Environment^ Protection Agency itself when it can shown the government has not acted ^ enforce its own regulations.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 7, 1972, edition 1
10
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75