Economists tell us that in the slave and feudal societies of the past labor costs were nonexistent. They only became a part of production costs when people became conscious of their rights as workers to demand a wage.

People's attitudes toward the exploitation of the environment are undergoing a similar process. But at a time when the public has still not fully grasped the impending environmental crisis, the rights to the environment still seem monopolized by a minority of factories and businesses that wantonly discard wastes, dirty the air, and dump pollutants as they like.

Earlier this century people became aware that if things continued in this way they could end up having a hard time even breathing. They came up with the idea of making polluters pay for the cost of the pollution they were responsible for. With that idea, a struggle over environmental rights, like the earlier one over human rights, became inevitable.

Because adding a bill for pollution control to their costs for capital, labor, and materials meant a pinch in their pocketbooks, businessmen were naturally inclined to fight the idea tooth and nail.

But as pollution created more and more victims and the environmental movement gained steam, taxpayers forced to bear the social costs created by a minority of polluters no longer remained silent and business was forced to give in. Today no one, unless wishing to arouse the public's wrath, would deny that companies must reflect the social costs of the pollution they create in their production costs.

It was in 1974 that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, in the name of fairness in international competition, advocated the principle of "the polluter pays," hoping that polluting companies in countries around the world would add the social costs of creating pollution in their production costs. The principle has also been called an "environmental user fee," since it grew out of the environmental movement.

ROC businessmen paid their first environmental users' fees in 1973, following implementation of the country's first environmental legislation, the Water Pollution Protection Law, which required factories failing to meet standards for waste water discharge to buy water treatment equipment.

Thereafter, as pollution continued to harm the environment and the firms responsible were increasingly the target of public ire, the government raced to establish a series of pollution standards and regulations to force companies to spend more money on pollution control and satisfy the public's demand for a higher quality environment. But many difficulties remain if the social costs of pollution are to be truly reflected as internal costs to the companies that produce it.

Even though the public has not relaxed its pressure and most manufacturers recognize that the polluters pay principle has become a fact of life, many of them still try to think of ways to evade complying and avoid paying the extra costs. They need time to adapt, they say, particularly as they have been accustomed to many privileges granted them in the past with the aim of promoting economic development. In addition, the largest manufacturers, and the biggest polluters, have often used their influence with the relevant government agencies to attain more favorable treatment.

Incentives offered by the Ministry of Economic Affairs to encourage firms to engage in pollution control include tax breaks, financial subsidies, relocation incentives, R&D in pollution control and treatment equipment, pollution control guidance teams. . . . Taken together, the subsidies allow businesses to save up to 60 percent of their pollution costs.

At least one economist feels that subsidizing companies to engage in pollution control with the taxpayer's money not only violates the polluter pays principle but allows companies to promote exports by pricing their products below their true costs, resulting in taxpayers indirectly subsidizing foreign Consumers.

"To the economist's way of thinking, there ideally shouldn't be subsidies at all," says Hsiao Tai-chi, an associate research fellow in the Institute of Economics at Academia Sinica. Discrepancies arise in practice, however. It's the same the world over; the only difference is in degree.

"But in the generosity with which it subsidizes companies to engage in pollution control, our country can be called second to none," Hsiao says. The only subsidies Japan offers are indirect low-interest loans and accelerated depreciation, and many countries take funds for subsidies solely from taxes levied on polluters rather than general tax receipts.

In fact, even if factories manage to comply with existing pollution control standards, many of the social costs they create may still remain unaccounted for, such as the environmental damage caused by discarded plastic products and packaging after sale.

Along with the spread of environmental awareness, the principle of the polluter pays and the concept of environmental users fees will naturally follow. Businessmen in the past could simply buy some land and build a factory. In the future they will have to bear the costs of looking for another site after being turned down again and again, of paying for the preparation of an environmental impact assessment, and of being a good neighbor by helping to improve local public facilities. In fact, a number of domestic makers have already "paid their dues" in just this way.

[Picture Caption]

"If you get it dirty, you clean it up!" With the awakening of environmental consciousness, polluters can no longer ignore the public dangers they ar e creating.

Pollution control equipment should be paid by enterprises as part of the cost of doing business.

Though the sky is blue, how long again before the sea is clear? If polluters don't take preventive measures, it may be hundreds or thousands of years. How is money going to fix that?

The final purpose of production is consumption, so consumers must also bear part of the costs of pollution.

For a limited resource like oil, for every extra liter used now, that's one less liter for the next generation. Because of this, some have suggested that we add "costs to the next generation" to the sales price.

The final purpose of production is consumption, so consumers must also bear part of the costs of pollution.

For a limited resource like oil, for every extra liter used now, that's one less liter for the next generation. Because of this, some have suggested that we add "costs to the next generation" to the sales price.

Though the sky is blue, how long again before the sea is clear? If polluters don't take preventive measures, it may be hundreds or thousands of years. How is money going to fix that?