I read a little more of Leadership Without Easy Answers. One of the case studies they talk about was an EPA situation in the Tacoma, WA area in the early 80’s. There was a plant that refined arsenic-containing copper ore, which was spewing carcinogenic material into the air. Causing one or two deaths a year, while employing a whole lot of people. They were required to put on some polution reducing hoods, which is where the story starts.
Environmentalists wanted the plant to be reduced to zero emissions. People who worked for the plant didn’t want it to close, recognizing that these ‘air scrubbing’ hoods were expensive. As it turns out, the plant was already operating at a loss, due to drops in the price of the ore they were refining.
There was a broad expectation that the EPA would come in and say “you have to do this to comply with environmental standards”. It did not. What they did was to hold meetings where they educated the parties involved, got them talking and took feedback. Multiple different perspectives came up, the plant eventually closed, though by the time it did, they had a worker retraining program setup and had been trying to diversify their economy.
It’s related to a train of thought I’ve been having lately on the subject of [sub]urban development, the whole walkable neighborhoods thing, etc. Is a walkable neighborhood economically viable? If it can actually compete, why are the suburbs so big? If the suburbs are the ideal setup, why are there laws to regulate the land use in the suburban style (frequently and vigorously applied)? I have some answers to those questions, but they are incomplete.
I really am glad I took that class.
Also read up a bit on OCD. Nothing too terribly surprising, though some of the details of it were rather new to me. Psych is a terribly interesting topic.