College of Business Administration

1) In looking at pollution and business, Hawken says that trying to study the effect of pollution on humans would be difficult. In order to prove to the chemical industry that they’re doing harm to humans, “…would be akin to trying to study the effects of tobacco smoking in a population where every person smokes” (pg. 43). What does he mean by this statement? How does the movement to wipe out smoking mimic the movement to wipe out pollution?

1a) Is conclusive proof the only hope for businesses to accept that certain substances are dangerous? Is proof enough for businesses to modify their behavior?

2) In regard to man-made toxins such as dioxin, cancer researcher Dr. Robèrt asks the following six questions in his Natural Step process:

“Is dioxin natural? No. Is dioxin stable? Yes. Does it degrade into harmless substances? No. Does it accumulate in bodily tissues? Yes. Is it possible to predict the acceptable tolerances? No. Can we continue to place dioxin into the environment? No, not if we want to survive” (pg. 53).

With such a simple yet powerful explanation of the harm dioxins can cause to all forms of life why do companies continue to produce them? Would a green fee prevent chemical pollution?

3) “…the purpose of green taxes is to raise the economic stakes to the level where we cannot afford to live off of capital – where it simply becomes prohibitively expensive to deforest, degrade, or destroy the environment” (pg. 181).

Is this feasible? Would green fees affect your buying habits?

4) “Only when the market accurately reflects the replacement costs of a resource… and the social costs of its consumption… will society begin to respond to the market in a rational way.” (Hawken, p. 197)

Are green fees the only way to adequately reflect the cost of limited resources?

5) In Chapter 3, Hawken says, “In business as in science, the most important thing to know is what you don’t know. Admitting one’s ignorance can be a powerful inducement to caution.” How could business use this philosophy to improve their pollution prevention practices?

6) In the movie, “Outrage at Valdez,” the fisherman says that the Exxon spill actually helped Alaska’s economy. Do you agree?

7) In the movie, “Outrage at Valdez,” authorities claim that the beaches are “clean,” while environmentalists claim they are not. Who is right? Who should have the authority to make such decisions? Are contingency plans or prevention programs more appropriate?

8) 3M’s 3P program has made significant reductions in pollution (91% reduction over ten years in some areas) by investing a considerable amount in pollution prevention on top of pollution control. This program has saved them $857 million. With such a success story for other large corporations to use as a benchmark why are these programs still the exception and not the norm?

9) Would 3M’s 3P program be as effective if it was not dependent upon the voluntary participation of the employees? Is it more effective because of the volunteerism aspect?

10) “The U.S. experience is rather typical for the industrialized nations, which have generally reduced pollution both in terms of emissions and ambient air quality…[h]owever, the air quality in most developing nations has deteriorated, and the number of people exposed to unhealthy pollution in those countries is frequently high.” (Tietenberg)

Do the U.S. and other industrialized nations have a responsibility to encourage other countries to develop emissions regulations?

Relate your opinion to the growing global economy and the U.S. role as leader. Does U.S. global economic success depend upon the fact that developing countries have few or no environmental regulations?

11) In looking at Tietenberg, chapter 13, can emissions trading policies be reformed to become more cost effective? Is there a way to avoid cost manipulation? If there were no market incentives for businesses to comply with regulations would policies still be effective in reducing pollution?