CONTINUED FROM PAGE S-3

should be, and how much servicing costs will amount to. The report is now being studied by the municipalities, and in late March the Pollution Advisory Committee, which is represented by all the municipalities adjacent to the Char- lottetown Harbour, will meet to discuss and report.

The cost of sewage treatment in and around Charlotte- town may run around two million dollars. The exact cost will depend on how extensive the plan is. It is clear, how- ever, that a fairly sizeable amount of money is involved.

To give some idea of how these costs arise, we can note the. survey for sewage treatment in Montague, which has shown \

that to excavate and lay 211000 feet of 8 inch pipe costs $8,796.00. Costs for the Charlottetown plan will be met on a cost sharing arrangement under which the federal gov- ernment will pay for twenty per cent, the provincial gov- ernment for forty per cent, and the municipal governments for forty per cent.

How soon the plan will go into effect depends largely on the Department of Development, and the municipal gov- ernments. Sixty per cent of the funds are automatically available. It is then up to the municipal governments to come up with the other forty per cent. The necessity of immediate action by the municipal governments is obvious. Informed sources ponted oiut to us that the cost of the Mon- tague sewage treatment system has risen from $134,000.00 in 1961 to $395,885.10 in 1969, while the increase in Mon- tague’s population has been small. If the municipal govern— ments do not act now, costs will sky rocket even further, pollution will get worse, and the taxpayers will have to find even more money in the end.

The situation is made even tougher because of the prob- lem of priorities which constantly faces the municipal gov- ernments. Do they'build a new road, or a new school, or do they worry about cleaning up the harbour. Moreover, the annual operating costs to run the treatment plan in Charlottetown and surrounding areas could be as much as $60,000 to $80,000 a-year. Nevertheless, if the project is not undertaken now, the costs will soon be a lot more than that. It is high time that sewage treatment was placed high on the list of priorities. "

In closing, we would like to point out that sewage and industrial waste disposal is a perfect example of the hidden social cost in the price of many products. When we buy meat, or a package of frozen peas, do we really pay the price marked on the package? No, in many cases the price ’ is much higher than we think it is. It is hidden, and only comes out when the taxpayer is asked to meet the cost of sewage treatment, industrial waste disposal, and in general, the cost of pollution. Our study shows that we must surely include conservation and disposal in the production-consump- tion cycle when analyzing the wealth of a province or the wealth of a nation.

This project was carried out under? the direction of Dr. J. Nagarajan for the course Economics of Resource Con- servation by the following students:

Claude Gallant Louis Smith Kathy Martin Peter Prebble Tony Tam Norman Kwok

// M"

THE LePAGE sHoE Co, ltd.

133 GRAFTON STREET

announces the 611710611 0/

the new styles [For spring

— we give a

student discount —

ANOTHER KIND

One form of air pollution is rarely discussed, let alone treated: the stuff that comes curt of the mouths of government officials. The Mysterious East is proud to present Canada’s first treatment plant for this kind of effluent. ,

PRIMARY STAGE: BASIC TERMS

CHECKING: What the Minister of Natural Resour- ces says — as in“‘I’m checking with my depart- ment now” —— when he is caught off balance by the question and hasn’t even heard of the prob lem before.

DANGEROUS LEVEL: What the pollution isn’t at yet — as in “dangerous levels” of pollution don’t yet exist in the Saint John River (New Bruns- wick Water Authority Chairman E. S. Fellows, September 1969). Normally this means that a few suckers and other rough fish are still cling- ing to life. '

EDUCATION: What Resource Ministers inevitably call for in their speeches on pollution. -— not, in- cidentally, education of industrial management, but education of the people affected by industrial pollution, so that they can die rich, knowing ex- actly what they have been poisoned: by.

IRRESP‘O‘NSIBLE JOURNALISM: The kind of writing which upsets people by referring to pois- ons as “poisons” and suggesting it may not be- wise to scatter them around too much.

MARGINAL FIRM: A firm which can’t make a profit if it’s forced to collect its own garbage, and which therefore dumps its wastes into our waiter and our air.

MYSTERIOUS: A word often used to describe fis - kills and similar visible results of pollution, as in: the phrase, “It was a mysterious business”. (A provincial government official commenting on the death of 80,000 silversides in the Malpcque Bay area of Prince Edward Island, 1 December 1969*).

NEGOTIATION-S: A ceremony by which governu

" menits save face when industries have told them to go to hell; a means of making the peasants feel something is happening while not disturbing the industrialists. For instance, since 1962- the New Brunswick government has. been “negotiat— ino” with Fraser Companies in Edmundston,‘ but nothing has ever come of it.

PERSUASION: Another placebo for the " public. See “Negotiations”.

PROHABITIVELY EXPENSIVE: A phrase often used to conceal a choice of priorities. It means “We’ve decided we’re not going to spend that kind of mioola (bread) on pollution”, because the government has decided, probably correctly, that the public wouldn’t support it. '

RESEARCH: What needs to be done before we -

stop some particular pollution. Cardinal rule: you don’t do research before you pollute; you only do it to see if it’xsr dangerous not to stop polluting7

STUDYING: As in: “We are studying the situation now.” This means (1) that the government knows about the situation, but is unable to do anything about it; or (2) that the government doesn’t know about the situation and will have to find out about it. This word. is commonly used to quiet critics of government action —\or inaction. For instance, “We are undertaking a study of the Boat Harbour area now”. (Donald R. MacLeod,

Nova Scotia Minister responsible for the Water F

Act, at a public meeting to discuss the gross pol- lution of the harbour by the Scott Maritimes Lim- ited pulp mill at nearby AJbercrombie Point.)

USEFUL PESTICIDE: A poison that kills lots of things, cheap. It certainly kills everything you want killed, and as a bonus it may kill lots of other things too. For instance, N. B. Agricul- ture Minister J. A. Levesque remarked in Septem

ber 1969 that he considered DDT an excellent pes- \

ticide and he would not like to have it banned in New Brunswick without some compelling reason.

SECONDARY STAGE: USEFUL PHRASES

Want to be a Resource Minister? Just learn these

easy phrases.

—,“Proper provisions were made for receiving the effluent.” A phrase usually followed by “but somehow the fish mysteriously died.”

-——“. . . . is the key factor in the battle against enL vironmental pollution.” Stick in any word you like assubject of the sentence. “Education” and “money” are particularly good, but “public aware- ness”, “an alert press” and “the concerned citizen” are all good too. Or try something novel: “press censorship”, or “outlawing the environment”. No— body’s paying attention anyway.

0

’ l I. Y >, L a I g

or- POLLUTION

-—“It is not easy to stop pollution from already established industries.” Good: old Charlie, the President of Foulwater‘ Paper Company, got you ‘ into the country club and contributes to your campaign funds, so you really can’t get too rough with him.

—“F-itrms operating on a marginal basis could be forced out of business if stringent and costly pol- lution control regulations were implemented.” That’s- Nova Scotia Minister I. W. Akerley, past president of theCanadian Council of Resource Ministers, a real sucCess in this line of work. He means, Don’t worry, fellows; we don’t means all that fancy stuff we put in the Water Act. In this case, it seems the poor do get a break.

—-“Action will be necessary if the pollution level rises any higher.” E. S. Fellows, New Brunswick Water Authority Chairmanpwas referring to the September, 1969, report revealing that Irving Pulp and Paper in Saint John dumps 27,000,000 gallons of effluent per day into the Saint John Harbour, more than the combined total of all other city sources. A useful tip for the beginner: notice the way he doesn’t say what kind of ac- tion, or under what'ci-ncunistances.

——“Pollution will be cleaned up in the .............. .. by .............. ..” The body of water named and the date mentioned are, of course, entirely discretionary; rthey depend simply on where and to whom the minister is speaking. ,

(reprinted from the Mysterious East)

PROBE POLLUTION

by Gan Cynick, Bay Street Analyst

TORONTO — There are radicals around the Canadian universities these days who oppose anti-

. pollution demonstrations — “Such protests don’t

really affect the power structure,” goes their argu— ment. '

,Well, that argument by the irreverant minor-- ity was laid to rest last week on the stock exchang- es both here and in: New York.

It took only president Richard Nixon’s voice, raised above the rabble of college students and pro— fessor-s, to spark a flurry ’of action. of Wall Street that proved once and for all that: if pollution doesn’t

“ sit too Well with living things —- at least it’s good

for business.

Wihin. a week, a New York Times survey indi- cated at least 1,000 companies are “trying to make a dollar by selling anti-pollution technology or equipment.” '

Earlier, the National Industrial Conference Board said capital spending on pollution control equipment —, for only 248 surveyed manufactures— climbed last year to over $300 million, or a 24 per cent increase.

For business, it was proof, once again, that if people -—- the everyday worker, housewife 0r col- lege student -— are willing to get into the streets and demand reform, their demands will . be met.

Reform is possible under capitalism; especially when it turns a nice profit.

In all it is a heartening period for stock brok- ers. Nixon’s dictom came just in time.

At the end of January the Dow-Jones industrial average hovered a scant 31.48 points above its de- cade low set the day after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. I

There is, of course, a word of caution to any investors carried away with the prospects of a “fastbuck” to be made in pollution control.

The government agencies charged with enforc- ing antimoollurtion measures :are not in condition to handle their work adequately. The National Air Pollution Control Administratiou, for instance, has suffered staff reductions of more than 10 per cent over the last 9 months. \ '

According to former NAP‘CA abatement and control director Smith Griswold, the government

I

‘ has not advised industry of the controls necessary

for pollution abatement. “Industry won’t install expensive gear until it

, knows What controls are required,” Griswold adds.

Most companies get into the field because they are major polluters themselves, and devise their own control equipment and technology. :

And, as the Quatnum study points out: “The largest emitter of pollutants, the automobile, offers no opportunities for outside manufacturers, since the auto industry Will be its own contra equipment.” '

Even there change will be slow. Charles Heine‘n of Chrysler says it will be 1983 before the industry has “achieved an 85 per cent reduction” in pollution

, for each car on the road.