Talk:Pollution prevention
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Discussion about the purpose of this article
[edit]I am starting a discussion here because I can see that User:Velella and User:Moreau1 have different views here. I concur with Velella but it seems that Moreau1 has a particular topic in mind with the term "pollution prevention". Is P2 a "protected" term in the US, being short for "pollution prevention"? When I hear of pollution prevention I think of all the different pollution articles (see sidebar template on the article page). Each of them towards the lower third usually has content about prevention and reduction approaches. Prevention and reduction/control is the same thing, isn't it? See e.g. at Water pollution here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Water_pollution#Control_and_reduction . Therefore, the "pollution prevention" topic does not need its own article but a disambiguation page is useful. We might have to correct a bunch of wikilinks though, check with the "what links to here" function. EMsmile (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I also had queries about the "P2" references . This is not a known usage in the UK or New Zealand (the only two countries whose pollution prevention legislation and process that I know well). I would have welcomed an article about pollution prevention taking a world view, but at present as EMsmile notes, this topic is intimately embedded in a whole raft of articles about pollution, and teasing relevant text out into a standalone article would be difficult. It would, almost certainly, also include considerable duplication of content; especially considering how difficult it is proving to be to craft the article on Water pollution so that there is minimal duplication. Velella Velella Talk 13:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am familiar only with the "P2" terminology as it is used in the US, but perhaps we can explore the related terms used—both in the US and worldwide—and see if we can clarify, cross-reference, etc. There are existing articles for some of the terms, but they need work.
- Pollution reduction and prevention are not necesarily the same thing. The concept of prevention is to avoid generating pollutants during the manufacturing process; this is also known as source reduction. However in some contexts the term "reduction" (without the "source" adjective) can mean different things, if not clearly defined by an author in a particular article or document. Some may use "reduction" to describe treatment of waste at the "end of pipe." (The pipe could be a smokestack, a wastewater discharge pipe, or a container of solid waste leaving a manufacturing site.)
- The term "pollution prevention" has been used in the US for decades, although not necessarily in a singular, formal way. Eventually US EPA developed some working definitions, and in 1990 the U.S. Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, which authorized EPA to promote source reduction practices, form coalitions with manufacturers, conduct research, workshops, etc. The law includes a definition of "source reduction". The law does not establish a regulatory program, but there is grant funding available that provides technical assistance to businesses. EPA summary of the law. The law states that source reduction is fundamentally different and more desirable than waste management and pollution control. More info: Learn About Pollution Prevention.
- One of the important concepts of source reduction goals is to comprehensively address the pollutants that are generated in all environmental media: air, water, solid waste, etc. One of the problems with many single-media environmental regulations worldwide is that they often merely push the pollutants to a different medium. The classic example is using wet scrubbers on smokestacks, which move the pollutants from air to water; and then the wastewater treatment system removes pollutants from the water and generates a sludge, which ends up in a landfill.
- The current Wikipedia article on the US law is rather skimpy. The source reduction article is not much better. Perhaps it would be helpful to encourage more use of the "source reduction" terminology in various articles, and improve the source reduction article. The "Control and reduction" section of the Water pollution article barely scratches the surface of this topic with such phrases as "integrated control measures" and "life-cycle considerations", neither of which are explained. Moreau1 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your comments do throw some light on the issue. In the UK and many European countries the emphasis in the early 20th century was organised by receiving media. In the UK we had "The Rivers Prevention of Pollution Acts 1951 - 1961" and then "The Clean Air Act". However the subsequent pan-European initiatives and legislation have been largely directed at integrated pollution prevention and control such as "2008/1/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control". Sitting under these wide ranging directives are a raft of daughter regulations dealing with specific issues and specific receiving media such as Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive etc., but the whole thrust is about all processes and all receiving media. The legislation is integrated; the work in the field is integrated so teasing the "prevention" aspect from the "control" aspect is not an easy task. Velella Velella Talk 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- An article on "pollution prevention" is for me difficult to fathom as there are so many different types of pollution. The side bar template lists these ones: Air pollution, Biological pollution, Electromagnetic pollution, Natural pollution, Noise pollution, Radiation pollution, Soil pollution, Solid waste pollution, Space pollution, Thermal pollution, Visual pollution, War pollution, Water pollution. Each of those will have their own sections on prevention, control, reduction... I think the term that User:Moreau1 is referring to with "The term "pollution prevention" has been used in the US for decades, although not necessarily in a singular, formal way. Eventually US EPA developed some working definitions, and in 1990 the U.S. Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 etc." refers mainly to pollutants from industrial or manufacturing processes that find their way into soil, water and the air. Right? But it's not what I think of when I hear the very broad term "pollution prevention". So a disambiguation page, like we currently have, is probably a good solution, I think. Improving source reduction and water pollution articles would be great. I hadn't looked at the source reduction article in the past. It's surprisingly short. Maybe it's set up as an overview/disambiguation article as well.EMsmile (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your comments do throw some light on the issue. In the UK and many European countries the emphasis in the early 20th century was organised by receiving media. In the UK we had "The Rivers Prevention of Pollution Acts 1951 - 1961" and then "The Clean Air Act". However the subsequent pan-European initiatives and legislation have been largely directed at integrated pollution prevention and control such as "2008/1/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control". Sitting under these wide ranging directives are a raft of daughter regulations dealing with specific issues and specific receiving media such as Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive etc., but the whole thrust is about all processes and all receiving media. The legislation is integrated; the work in the field is integrated so teasing the "prevention" aspect from the "control" aspect is not an easy task. Velella Velella Talk 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)