dpb wrote:


That there should be efforts to mitigate former sites is good, but to
caste current individuals as scapegoats for stuff done before they
were even born is not productive.

That said, yes, there are some who aren't doing all they might, but
that too is a fairly widespread trait in human history. Overall, if
one compares progress in the US to the developing nations and places
such as E Europe or the former Soviet Union, we look pretty darn good.

I was once offered an investment opportunity: a sand pit.

Forget about selling the sand, the deal was a tax dodge.

As the sand was removed, you were depleting an asset and got to take a
deduction. At some point, the sand pit would be empty. You're left with a
honkin' big hole in the ground.

Now you charge people to dump stuff (trees, concrete, etc.). The hole now is
your asset, and as it fills, you get another asset-reduction write-off.

When the hole gets full, you cover the mess with topsoil and build low-cost
housing.

Anyway, with regard to SuperFund sites, why couldn't they just cover 'em up
and build housing for the poor? Lest you think that's weird, Italy covers
contaminated sites with rubber sheeting, then soil, and turns the results
into parks.