Cover the Planet

By David Poulson

Newsweek has a good story out this week explaining how the global recession benefits the environment.

The magazine’s story is international in scope - there is a big focus on the impact of polluting factories shutting down in developing nations. Falling beef prices and a lack of farm credit is reducing pressure on converting Brazilian rainforest into pasture.

But it strikes me that this is a good local environmental story. It would be a great way to get business reporters thinking more about environmental costs. Or it could help a savvy environmental reporter get onto business pages and find a new group of readers.

The premise isn’t that hard to follow. Less disposable income means a reduction in demand which means less stuff gets produced. When production dips, so do the ancillary byproducts - pollutants - that get into the environment. That’s certainly good news about a bad news story. But it’s hardly a longterm strategy for environmental improvement.

Still, often the factories that shut down first are those that are least efficient. If you’re letting a lot of your materials leak into the environment instead of putting them into your products, you’re probably not tops in productivity.

A key longterm question is whether these inefficient, polluting factories will be replaced with upgraded facilities in an economic turnaround. Perhaps an economic slowdown gives companies an incentive to invest in more efficient upgrades.

Or maybe dirty factories that go away simply never come back, making room for jobs that are green or at least less brown. And what about development proposals that stall? Does some sensitive land and other resources get a temporary reprieve that may turn into a longterm break? Is it a delay that perhaps gives an opportunity to put in safeguards in anticipation of recovery?

Regardless, chances are that an economic downturn is giving the environment at least a temporary breather. It may be interesting to get a handle on local air emissions and water discharges and compare them with previous years.

Unfortunately it may also be too early. Emissions linked to the downturn won’t show up yet in the federal Toxic Release Inventory. You might find earlier evidence in state or local regulatory data.

Or use agency records to identify those factories that have had historically high discharges. Are they still in business? Downsizing? Retooling?

Or stick this one in a tickler file and revisit it once the data rolls in. Perhaps by then the economy will have recovered and you can write about whether the shake out resulted in a net environmental gain.