Chemical Insult

I’m not an apologist for the chemical industry. Chemical industry has a checkered past in many ways. The pesticide, petrochemicals, and mining industries have left a deep and abiding foul taste in the mouths of many communities. In a previous era, heavy industry has fouled rivers, lakes, air, and ground water. It has lead to illness, death, and loss of livelihood to many people.

But in the modern era much of this wanton issuance of hazardous industrial material into the air and waters has been halted or greatly diminished. And it is not because industry suddenly found religion. The “regulatory environment” became so compelling a liability cost factor that industry set its mind to engineering plants into compliance. 

I would make the observation that today, the major chemical health issues before us are not so much about bulk environmental pollution by waste products. Rather, I would offer that the most important matter has to do with the chronic exposure of consumers to various levels of manufactured chemical products. High fructose corn sweeteners, veterinary antibiotic residues, endocrine disrupters, smoking, highly potent pharmaceuticals, and volatiles from polymers and adhesives to name a few.

Modern life has come to require the consumption of many things.  A modern nation must have a thriving chemical industry to sustain at least some of its need for manufactured materials. It is quite difficult and isolating to live a life free of paint and plastics or diesel and drugs. Choosing paper over plastic at the supermarket requires a difficult calculation of comparative environmental insults. Pulp manufacture vs polymer manufacture- which is the least evil? I’m not sure.  

The path to a cleaner and safer life in these modern times is surely a life that pursues fewer consumables. Less throw-away stuff.  Less calorie intake and greater calorie expenditure. Reduced consumption of foods engineered by modifiers and additives.

Given the expectation of multitasking in our culture, it is increasingly difficult to arrange to prepare fresh foods. Meal preparation time eats into commuting time.

Now that I think it through, maybe it’s our culture that is killing us? Maybe our adverse exposure to deleterious substances is an artifact of a cultural requirement for increased productivity.

At the outset, I said I was not an apologist for the chemical industry. But I am not a Luddite either. Modern material science (which includes chemistry) has brought aid against a great many of the hazards and inconveniences of life. As we pass through the age of increasing population and peak oil we must adjust our expectations of the benefits of manufactured goods in the betterment of our lives. Linear extrapolations such as “more = better” begin to fail at high levels of consumption. That is the lesson that I’ve taken.

3 thoughts on “Chemical Insult

  1. Pingback: Todays Current Events in the Environment » Alert - environmental pollution

  2. Mike

    “more = better”

    The USA is the primary culprit here. We have created an economic system based on consumerism and hence our ‘behavior’ and culture reflect this. So long as we pin our countries aspirations on rising per capita GDP growth and rising ‘real wages’ the trend will continue. Almost all these economic parameters are based on population growth.This can work indefinitely so long as there are excess resources.
    The growing reliance on outsourcing, limiting healthcare, decline in real wages, etc are all symptoms of increasing global competition and
    a decline in spare capacity.

    Growth = prosperity = consumerism.

    The funny thing is that the notion of population growth is sadly neglected when it comes to assessing various economic stats. US population growth requires 150,000 jobs per month. So when we lose 80K jobs this might very well mean 230k unemployed individuals. The Bush admin began to employ some fuzzy stats with the birth to death adjustments when it came to power to hide this fact. I’ll post a link, but the interested reader will have no trouble finding many an outraged economist ranting on this distortion.

    http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/unemploy.shtml

    Reply
  3. Jordan

    I once read (in “Cradle to Cradle” — an interesting if somewhat breathless book) that a lot of our waste / pollution woes come from the natural human desire to be the first to own / use a particular individual object (the book uses the idea of “de-virginizing objects” to describe this — it may be an apt analogy!) If our sense of economy and stewardship over the earth were stronger than this “de-virginizing” inclination, we perhaps wouldn’t have the consumer, throw-away, cost-focussed, faddish culture we find ourselves with.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Mike Cancel reply