laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/10/83)
While poor old Bud Wiser has to think about the disasterous effects of polution (very bad thing,that polution is) he is also going to have to think about the benefits his industry has on the area. After all, Bud probably employs people in the area, and all of them (and he himself if he lives there) spend money in the area, thus enriching the economy. If he shuts down to not pollute, what will that do to the unemployment? And what will be worse? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (10/12/83)
Laura Creighton says: While poor old Bud Wiser has to think about the disasterous effects of polution (very bad thing,that polution is) he is also going to have to think about the benefits his industry has on the area. After all, Bud probably employs people in the area, and all of them (and he himself if he lives there) spend money in the area, thus enriching the economy. If he shuts down to not pollute, what will that do to the unemployment? And what will be worse? I say: Unemployment is a very bad thing, pollution is a very bad thing, polution is not anything as far as I know, but I believe Mr. Wiser would be wiser to try to MINIMIZE his pollution to a level that would not have such a disasterous effect. The added emissions equipment or filtering or whatever (depending on the nature of the pollution) will certainly need to be built and maintained by people (possibly in the area!), and Bud can run his industry after all, enriching the economy! Although such equipment is an added cost to Mr. Wiser, the added uckies in the "area" would take much more money to clean up when they eventually got dangerous. ---------------------------------------- Dave Decot ..!decvax!cwruecmp!decot
CSvax:cmh@pur-ee.UUCP (10/12/83)
The dilemma of unemployment vs. pollution has already happened in Allegheny county. Of course, people voted to retain employment in favor of illegal amounts of pollution. Chris Hoffmann