The economics of pollution

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33024, 18 September 1972, Page 2

The economics of pollution

r.V.Z. Pre»» Association)

AUCKLAND. Sept. 17.

The quality of the environment was largely a matter of money, the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Highet) said in Auckland. Speaking to the New Zealand conference of the Kiwanis International, he said that people talked about the need for harsher laws against air and water pollution. “But we already have enough legislation on the books to clean up this country overnight—if we could afford to use it.” The cost would be very steep, he said. “Many people would be out of work, the prices of home products would go up sharply, and our exports would be priced out of the overseas market.” Mr Highet said New Zealand faced the old problem of the conflict between the ideal and the practical. People were calling for an immediate stop to any further water pollution, but this would mean building modern sewage plants cost-

ing many millions of dollars, and the public must pay for this, he said. “You can pay this money directly, or slightly disguised through Government grants or loans. But it’s still your money.”

The idea of making an industrial polluter pay for cleaning worked quite well, except for two things. The cost of the clean-up was passed back to the public through higher prices; or, if the manufacturer could not do this, he would go broke, causing damage to the local economy.

“Farmers as well as industrialists cause pollution, and if we insist on the polluter paying, then 10 per cent must go on butter, cheese, mutton and beef, to pay for the anti-pollution work,” he said.

“To beat pollution the public should get their priorities right and think about it in real terms, like spending money on sewage treatment instead of a new car, a new house, golf club fees or even racing and beer,” Mr Highet said.