If you would understand anything about the chemical industry, bridge building industry or electronics industry, is that the goal is and always has been to
- reduce the amount of raw materials used because more materials cost more than less materials
- recycle as much product as possible from pre-consumer to post-consumer if it makes money.
- if something is not affordable in large scale, it is not likely an energy efficient decision.
- if a waste has value, it is already getting recycled (companies are not stupid)
- if you don't want plastic bottles stacking up in a landfill, charge more money (or raise taxes) to prevent people from buying plastic bottles. Don't come up with some make-work program that uses MORE fuel to collect and make crap out of the bottles.

While I would agree that corporate interests, profitability, and good engineering generally lead to maximizing efficiency and minimizing energy and resource consumption, there are also plenty of cases where those guidelines alone won't steer you towards what many would consider sustainable development.

If you've got a factory with giant smokestacks, there's a good chance you'll find a way to reclaim as much heat as you can as the smoke leaves so that you can use that heat for something else. You're much less likely to voluntarily put scrubbers up there that capture lead, arsenic, or other harmful byproducts, because that doesn't make you money or save you energy.

Likewise if you've placed your heavy industry next to a lake or river to utilize water for cooling - you might do everything possible to maximize efficiency, but you're not driven by basic engineering needs to keep that water uncontaminated.

There are times when engineering alone isn't enough. You need deliberate corporate decisions to choose environmental responsibility over some fractional loss of efficiency, or you need government intervention to force it if companies won't do it voluntarily.

We could argue till the end of time about where and what those limits should be, but it seems clear to me that engineering for profit and efficiency alone won't cover every situation.

 

If you've got a factory with giant smokestacks,

Do you live in the 1970's?

There are times when engineering alone isn't enough. You need deliberate corporate decisions to choose environmental responsibility over some fractional loss of efficiency, or you need government intervention to force it if companies won't do it voluntarily.

I don't disagree... did you see my quote where I suggested decisions could be encouraged (mandated) through higher taxes (or regulations or what ever other government involvement is needed).. here it is.

- if you don't want plastic bottles stacking up in a landfill, charge more money (or raise taxes) to prevent people from buying plastic bottles. Don't come up with some make-work program that uses MORE fuel to collect and make crap out of the bottles.

Im not sure we need to argue unless you really want to..

We could argue till the end of time about where and what those limits should be, but it seems clear to me that engineering for profit and efficiency alone won't cover every situation.

I don't know what you want to argue about, do you need government regulations or some consultant to force engineers to put as many circuits as possible on a silicon wafer? Do you need companies to stop using more TEOS than they need during the deposition process? Should some agency say a phone needs to use less energy so the user doesn't have to charge it so often?

Please tell me about all the waste issues that need to be addressed (since you didn't so far).

 

Do you live in the 1970's?



I don't disagree... did you see my quote where I suggested decisions could be encouraged (mandated) through higher taxes (or regulations or what ever other government involvement is needed).. here it is.




Im not sure we need to argue unless you really want to..


I don't know what you want to argue about, do you need government regulations or some consultant to force engineers to put as many circuits as possible on a silicon wafer? Do you need companies to stop using more TEOS than they need during the deposition process? Should some agency say a phone needs to use less energy so the user doesn't have to charge it so often?

Please tell me about all the waste issues that need to be addressed (since you didn't so far).

No, not really looking to argue. You make good points on all counts. Sorry if I overreacted to your post. I work with a lot of people who are adamantly against ANY regulation or oversight, and it's possible I'm a little defensive around these issues now partially because of them.

As for your final paragraph, I've already agreed that even without guidance or regulation industry tends to be good at minimizing wasted energy or raw materials - it's mostly the question of pollution that I think they're less likely to address without guidance of some sort.