Why do we try to solve environmental problems by eliminating the cause?

Try the following experiment: Pick any environmental problem and then write down the first three solutions to that problem that come to your mind. Now, go through each solution, and note whether that solution somehow involves eliminating the cause of the problem. For example, if you listed air pollution as your problem, perhaps your solutions were to put better scrubbers on power plants, give incentives for people to junk older automobiles, and make lawn mowers less polluting. If so, you’re three for three: all three of your solutions would involve eliminating the cause of the problem, in this case sources of air pollutants. 

Now if I were a betting man, I'd wager that the vast majority of us would have done something similar, namely, provide solutions that focused on eliminating the cause of the problem. But why should eliminating the cause be our preferred type of solution?  Certainly, there are many different types of solutions available. To get a sense of what kinds, let's first consider that we can think of all problems as having the following form:

A " B

where A is some action or activity, B is some consequence with undesirable traits, and """ is the causal connection between A and B. Thus, the three possible solutions to any problem (beyond doing nothing) are to eliminate or remove A, to eliminate or remove the connection between A and B, or to isolate B so none of the undesirable features of B can affect others.  

For the case of pollution by hazardous waste, A might be the dumping of the waste into the ground, B the exposure of the waste to people or animals, and """ the process by which the waste reaches people. For the case of global warming, A might be anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, B might be increased global mean surface temperature, and """ the greenhouse effect. Of course, for any given environmental problem, there may be multiple causes, effects, and connections between the two, but in principle, we can think of all solutions to environmental problems as falling into these three categories.

As an example of these kinds of solutions, consider our hazardous waste scenario. A solution that eliminates the cause might be to remove the waste from the ground altogether, such as by excavation. A solution of the second type, to break the connection between the cause and effect, might be to cordon off the contaminated area so human beings and animals cannot access it. An example of the third type of solution might be to make medical treatments available to those who are exposed that prevent those people from being harmed (e.g., an antidote of some sort).  

For the case of global warming, an example of eliminating the cause would be measures to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide, such as by decreasing fossil fuel use, capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide at the point of power generation, improved energy conservation measures, etc. An example of breaking the connection between A and B is a proposal to place gigantic parasols in space to shade the Earth from part of the incoming solar radiation, to balance out the increase in temperature due to the increase in carbon dioxide. And examples of the last solution include moving houses out of areas vulnerable to increased storm activity (such as floodplains), building sea walls to combat sea-level rise, etc.  

Each of these different types of solutions has its own strengths and weaknesses, and many different factors contribute to the desirability of each option: cost, effectiveness, ethical concerns, scientific uncertainty, etc. And it is beyond the scope of this post to address what standards we should use to decide between these types of solutions. Instead, I only want to note that for real-world problems, though many of us prefer only one type of solution (eliminating the cause), many times the solution that is actually implemented is of the other two types. For instance, with respect to hazardous waste, removal of the waste may be deemed unsafe or too costly, with isolating the waste from the community being preferred. When the hazardous waste is something very hazardous, and the "environment" is the entire Earth (such as with high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants), isolation is the only realistically feasible solution; removal by launching the waste into the Sun, while intriguing, is currently very difficult to accomplish safely.  

Which brings me back to my earlier question:  why do we so seldom think of other solutions besides eliminating the cause? If as a society we always solve our environmental problems by implementing the eliminate-the-cause solution, it would make sense for us to have that solution-type as our default. But that is not what we do as a society.  So why the preference for eliminating the cause? I have some of my own ideas, but since this is a blog, let me throw this question out to you. What do you think? Do we have such a preference? Why or why not? Is this good or bad?

-Johnny Wei-Bing Lin, Associate Professor of Physics

Comments

[Jeff Ganim]

I think you hit on something important here. I think the reason that our first reaction is to eliminate the cause is because we all instinctively know that this is the only real solution, since it is the only long term one. The eliminating the causal connection would also work, however I think that this is usually beyond our control, at least in our everyday life. The isolation of B seems a bit like 'pushing something under the rug.' It seems like this is the solution which is often done, because it is easiest in the moment. I am a biblical theology major, not a science major so this next part may reflect that. I wonder if this is a product of a culture who, if their hearts were laid bare, would show that they have accepted the old Epicurean slogan as a life philosophy, "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die." And so what is under the rug sits there and rots for the next generations to clean up while the present one goes out and parties. Perhaps this sounds rather negative, but I think there is some truth to this.