187
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
D. J. Soeder, Fracking and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59121-2_10
Chapter 10
Mitigation and Remediation
Environmental professionals use two broad approaches known as mitigation and
remediation to address environmental problems. Mitigation means changing the
way something is done in order to reduce or prevent additional environmental damage. It can include things like installing sediment traps to protect waterways from
construction site runoff for example, or using electrostatic precipitators on smokestacks to keep coal combustion fly ash from coating the countryside. Mitigation is
the “prevention” step. Remediation, on the other hand, involves going back and
repairing environmental damage that has already been done. It includes things like
cleaning up beaches after an oil spill, or pumping and treating contaminated groundwater. Remediation is the “cleanup” step.
Mitigation is almost always better than remediation. Preventing a problem from
occurring in the first place is usually cheaper and simpler than the costs and time
involved in cleaning up a mess afterward. Unfortunately, in many cases remediation
turns out to be cheaper than mitigation when someone else is paying the bills. This
is because the cost of mitigation is typically borne by industry, whereas society is
often stuck with the tab for remediation. As mentioned previously, this practice of
passing the responsibilities for cleanup costs and other consequences of environmental damage to taxpayers is called an “externalized cost,” and a number of industries are quite good at it, including the chemical industry. The so-called environmental
“Superfund” was set up by Congress in the 1970s with billions of taxpayer dollars
to pay for the cleanup of chemical contamination on industrial sites where the original polluters were either bankrupt or long gone. There will be more discussion in the
next chapter on some of the ways society can address the issue of externalized costs.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
D. J. Soeder, Fracking and the Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59121-2_10
Chapter 10
Mitigation and Remediation
Environmental professionals use two broad approaches known as mitigation and
remediation to address environmental problems. Mitigation means changing the
way something is done in order to reduce or prevent additional environmental damage. It can include things like installing sediment traps to protect waterways from
construction site runoff for example, or using electrostatic precipitators on smokestacks to keep coal combustion fly ash from coating the countryside. Mitigation is
the “prevention” step. Remediation, on the other hand, involves going back and
repairing environmental damage that has already been done. It includes things like
cleaning up beaches after an oil spill, or pumping and treating contaminated groundwater. Remediation is the “cleanup” step.
Mitigation is almost always better than remediation. Preventing a problem from
occurring in the first place is usually cheaper and simpler than the costs and time
involved in cleaning up a mess afterward. Unfortunately, in many cases remediation
turns out to be cheaper than mitigation when someone else is paying the bills. This
is because the cost of mitigation is typically borne by industry, whereas society is
often stuck with the tab for remediation. As mentioned previously, this practice of
passing the responsibilities for cleanup costs and other consequences of environmental damage to taxpayers is called an “externalized cost,” and a number of industries are quite good at it, including the chemical industry. The so-called environmental
“Superfund” was set up by Congress in the 1970s with billions of taxpayer dollars
to pay for the cleanup of chemical contamination on industrial sites where the original polluters were either bankrupt or long gone. There will be more discussion in the
next chapter on some of the ways society can address the issue of externalized costs.