I recently talked with a smoker. I won't reveal his name, but Jimmy Smoke would suffice here.

During the conversation, Jimmy Smoke lit up several times, and it seemed that each flick of the lighter reminded him of how society was openly persecuting tobacco users. Smokers are relegated to distant patios. They can't smoke indoors anymore. They are surrounded by harpies that scold them. And now, some communities ban smoking outdoors, too!

"The air doesn't belong to anybody," he fumed.

After breathing the haze that had gradually come to surround him, and ruminating on how the smoke that had just circulated inside his lungs was now being inhaled into mine, I retorted, "The air doesn't belong to anybody; it belongs to everybody."

I couldn't tell whether my comment quieted or disquieted him, but for a moment he stood transfixed, and then went on to another topic. Many, I believe, have only a dim awareness that what they do to the air could affect anyone else. An ethics professor I know would chalk it up to infantile, self-centered thinking or inadequate social development.

The exchange with Jimmy was a microcosm; let's take a look at the mesocosm.

In June, a Des Moines developer by the name of Bobby Joe Knapp was sentenced to 41 months in prison for willfully violating the Clean Air Act. The prison term will be followed up by 2 years of supervised release, 300 hours of community service, and a $12,500 fine.

It seems that over a three-year period, Bobby Joe, owner and operator of the old Equitable Building in downtown Des Moines, carried out extensive renovations to the property that involved the removal of asbestos-laden pipe coatings and tiles.

Bobby Joe had his workers remove asbestos from the upper stories of the building and hide the material in an uncovered dumpster. The workers had neither protective equipment nor proper training. The tenants and customers who still did business on the lower floors had no idea of the dusty death that floated aloft.

Finally in 2009, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources became involved and fined Bobby Joe $500,000. What became of that fine is unclear as Bobby Joe has since been sentenced to prison and lost the Equitable in foreclosure.

Bobby Joe pled guilty, but asked to have his prison time reduced or eliminated completely. After all, he had done good things for people in the past. He was basically a good man and it was just a little air.

What Jimmy Smoke and Bobby Joe have in common is that they don't believe the air belongs to anybody. It's vast! There's so much of it! A little dust or smoke could do no harm.

Jimmy is now taking care of his wife, who – surprise! – is suffering from the first stages of lung cancer. He never realized that it was her air, too.

Bobby Joe thought he should be let off for spreading contamination throughout the streets of Des Moines, planting the seeds of mesothelioma in possibly thousands of lungs.

I don't feel the need to take this to the macrocosm, to large-scale polluters and politicians who want to eliminate the agencies that tell them, "The air doesn't belong to anybody; it belongs to everybody."

Large non-compliant corporations poison the air, too, on a far greater scale than my examples above, and I wonder why they do not end up either like Jimmy Smoke, forever grieving over his carelessness, or like Bobby Joe, griefless, still careless, but enduring its consequences?

Maybe it's the same in microcosm, mesocosm and macrocosm. Maybe it's just part of our lower human nature, infantile self-centeredness or inadequate social development to think, "The air doesn't belong to anybody."

This week's post was written by guest blogger Sarah Medearis; Sarah is a Senior Consultant with Antea Group’s Baltimore Office and is the company’s Operational Performance and Assurance Practice Leader.

Twenty-first century environmental regulations require more detailed pollutant accounting than their 20th century predecessors, and rely on increasing public demand for transparency and corporate social responsibility to green industrial operations. Ontario’s Ministry of Environment (MOE) is one of many agencies in North America requiring manufacturers to track and publicly account for toxic substances at their facilities under its new Toxics Reduction Act (TRA) regulations (O. Reg. 455/09). Finalized in December 2009, reporting requirements for some of the listed toxic substances were due for the first time on June 1 of this year.

These new and more rigorous regulations draw on each other, creating a complex diversity of similar requirements throughout North America. The MOE drew upon the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) and New Jersey’s Pollution Prevention (P2) Act to develop the TRA requirements. Ontario’s TRA regulations focus on specific industrial operations at a facility that create or use toxic substances, not just those that result in pollutant emissions from the facility as a whole. Accounting for individual toxic substances is a more complex process than previous requirements. It starts by organizing facility operations into distinct “Stages” within which there are one or more processes using, creating or emitting toxic substances.

At the process level, measurements and calculations must be performed to quantify the amount of toxic substances used, created, transformed, destroyed, contained in the product, released or disposed of, or transferred to another process or medium. The data and quantification methods must be evaluated for accuracy with mass balance checks performed to identify any imbalances between input and output so that all quantities can be explained.

As part of the drive towards transparency, and to ensure there are no hidden icebergs under the water, MOE requires firms to also report costs associated with these industrial operations in its P2 plan due at the end of the year. MOE is particularly interested in all the “indirect costs” that the agency believes really drive P2, including:

• Environmental, health and safety compliance
• Pollution liability
• Waste disposal
• Hazardous material storage & handling
• Worker protective equipment, ventilation
• Container labeling, packaging (CLP), material safety data sheets (MSDS)
• Administrative burdens
• Public relations
• Energy, operation and maintenance for pollution control equipment

As part of the expected corporate social responsibility, the P2 plan must identify at least one method for reducing toxic substances under each of seven P2 categories. Both feasible and non-feasible options must have a rough toxic substance reduction estimate. For those options that are considered technically feasible, the P2 plan must document the anticipated cost savings. The net present value and timelines for implementing feasible P2 options must be outlined, along with the anticipated cost savings of both direct and indirect (and co-benefits) including:

• Total Savings
• Return on Investment (ROI) and Payback Period
• Replaces Equipment Scheduled for Repair/Replacement
• Energy Efficiencies
• Reductions in Byproducts
• Reduced Worker Exposure (including reductions in claims, comp time, PPE costs)

The increased complexity of these newer pollutant regulations and the sharing of regulatory requirements across North America do have benefits. Despite the variations among regulations, environmental professionals experienced with, or certified under, TURA and the New Jersey P2 Act can support firms in meeting Ontario’s 2011 TRA accounting, planning and reporting requirements. As the reach of these regulations expands, so does the professional expertise to stream-line and more efficiently meet the regulatory requirements as well as reap the benefits of P2 plans. In addition, while annual pollutant reporting and compound-specific P2 plans are required, implementing P2 measures remains voluntary. But with increasing public pressure for corporate social responsibility, together with the effort spent preparing compound-specific P2 plans, companies can make both social and environmental gains by greening their operations.