In his essay, LeCain stats “even when environmental techno-fixes do appear to solve problems for various human interest groups, they often appear to do so only by harming the natural world in some new way.”(137) This basically sums up his argument on environmental techno-fixes. Within his writing he describes how mines and smelting have had major consequences to the environment especially around 1900. As industrialization grew, pollution and environmental concerns grew faster. Generally these plants would show their wicked side after they had been operating for awhile and great damage was already done. After environmentalists and local people would sue these companies they often developed ways to make what the companies, like Anaconda where doing, safer. However, although they would solve the current problem they often would cause another problem and once again this cycle would start over. This is why LeCain agrees that although techno-fixes will solve the problem at hand, they are sure to cause a different unknown environmental consequence.
What if today’s society went without copper and other important minerals? It would without a doubt reduce the great amounts of pollution that are poured into the world today. However, like the article discusses, this would cause extreme economic concerns. It would cause the price of alternative resources to skyrocket due to the lack of these resources. Due to the current state of our planet and the effects of global warming I would strongly side with the environment over the economical opportunities.