The first techno fix mentioned was at a mining operation in the south. The miners devised a plan to eliminate the amount of sulfur dioxide gas from the surrounding areas as they were letting the copper ore sit outside and smelter. This gas showed how it destroyed the surrounding areas of woodlands and beautiful grass. They noticed this as an environmental problem and so they decided to fix it. The fix was a way to convert the sulfur gas into sulfuric acid and get it out of the air. This also opened up a business opportunity to the fertilizer companies that used the sulfuric acid in there products so there for it was a win, win. However LeCain states, “ even new products as seemingly beneficial as phosphate fertilizers were not without their negative consequences.” (Pg. 142, LeCain). Another techno fix took place in the California and Utah areas. This was an arsenic problem, which was another huge problem with copper mines in this time. LeCain’s main point of argument I believe is saying that yes these may have been great fixes for the time being, but these things are always temporary and therefore they still impact the environment, until we can come up with a foolproof way to win and also let the environment win.
I believe that we do need these minerals and ores. I mean we use them everyday, these are things that we have mined for hundreds of years despite the environmental problems or the problem of running out. We have to look at it in the sense that if we did not use these resources then where would we be today with the impact it would have had on technological feats. Where would the economy be and the numerous jobs relying on this line of work. I believe that if we had stopped and decided we did not need these minerals, then I believe we would still be stuck in a time, not near as advanced as we are today. But maybe that would be a good thing, but also a bad, I guess its different for every person that thinks about the situation.