by Christine » 05/12/05, 21:40
I think there are several comments to make
- Ecotechnology can act upstream of pollution or downstream. The definition they give in the intro is that of upstream technology, that is to say one that avoids mess. But unfortunately, the examples they cite (wastewater treatment, waste management) are technologies that are found downstream, made to repair the bullshit, in short.
You have to separate the two. Is it better to be responsible from the start or can we say "we can do anything because there will always be a technology to pick up our dirt behind us?"
Of course, it is almost always the second option that is chosen because it is first of all an easy solution, and above all because it creates a new market (very juicy by the way).
- "Upstream" environmental technologies do not allow economic growth (In any case not in the current state of things). Quite simply because environmental costs are not taken into account in economic calculations (GDP and co). Indeed, how to quantify the disappearance of a flora, for example? On the other hand, the costs of establishing and operating a treatment plant (always for example) are well quantifiable. There are so many millions spent on research, so much in construction, so many jobs etc. It is therefore "downstream" ecotechnologies that allow economic growth.
- This is why truly “eco” technologies, that is to say those which are upstream, experience these financing problems and consequently lack know-how, in a segmented market, etc.
0 x