>I think that it's goofy to assume that all that it is "conscientious" for a government to do is think about the environment. A government has a responsibility to the people it serves - a responsibility (according to current governmental theory, anyhow) to ensure at the very least the survival of its people....In a time of economic recession, the government cannot - should not - recklessly endager the economy further. Moderate-to-large economic losses in a time of prosperity are acceptable for a relatively small environmental benefit. In a time of recession, there is not that much economic leverage.

Maybe I should have explained - the concepts Paul Anastas supports, and the US is pushing for with the clear skies initiative are based around the concept of economically viable methods. The reason why the Kyoto protocol was ditched by GW Bush was that manipulation of the treaty could cause an economic slump in the West whilst simeltaneously having no effect on current emission levels.

If you can do an industrial process without the expensive cleanup - how much money are you saving? For example, GSK spend 2.4 billion pounds on research every year. They spend roughly the same amount on waste disposal. How much research/profit could they reap from greener chemistry techniques?

I'm not trying to be goofy and headily idealistic here - and I'm certainly not a happy clappy tree hugger who thinks that the environment comes first over the quality of life. I'm a chemist, and a very down to earth one at that.

But its an important point we have to address.

As for the necessity of a nuclear arsenal, I'd have to completely disagree with you. I personally think that the need for bigger, better, faster, harder nuclear weapons is a fallacy.
The argument for "necessary defence" is a classic example of sabre rattling that dates back to the forties.

Only one country has used nukes in a wartime environment. No prizes for guessing who.

These tests are meant to find a better version of the Trident Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, a weapon of mass destruction - what do they need to know? How big a bang it makes? How many people it will kill?

The point I was trying to make is that its a very poor strategy to wax lyrical about making the world a better place whilst simeltaneously agreeing to make a stretch of wasteland glow in the dark. Unless of course he's looking for a political distraction.

>If you're implying that a government's primary responsibility is to care for the environment.

No, its the governments, industry's and OUR responsibility to care for ourselves and our future through respecting the environment. Thats what I'm saying. Saying that its the ONLY THING that we should care about is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

> Also, would things be different is legislation was based upon public opinion?

Yes. Nothing would ever get done.

What I was trying to get at was the inconsistency of public knowledge over matters such as pollution, its sources and consequences.


Bourne