If you ask which is more important, the economy or the environment, most people will immediately choose the economy. After all, the economy is nuts and bolts, dollars and cents. The environment is some kind of airy-fairy thing out in the land of the goodie-goodies, right?

Webster defines the environment as “that which surrounds us.” It is that which is “out there.” Therefore, while those tiny particles that blow in from power plants west of our mountains might look trashy, since our economy seems to depend on that floating grit we just have to tough it out and not complain. After all, the pollution is “out ther” remember? According to our congressional representative Charles Taylor (R-Brevard), we will probably want to clean up some of it after we get a good economy going. Our president has even said the American economy is more important than the world’s climate.

Truth is, though, the economy is totally dependent upon having enough environment to convert into goods and services for distribution to those who can afford to buy them. If we wreck the environment badly enough we will damage the economy irreparably. If we can’t maintain our environment we will watch our economy collapse.

But it goes even deeper than that. Like breathing. The only air we have to breathe is “out there.” We breathe it in, with all that floats in it and blend it with our own oxygen and blood. Then we pulse that mixture deeply inside us. We eat food that was chemically pesticized and fertilized “out there.” Then our bodies have to process and store that toxic material “in here,” as they try to maintain and rebuild our muscles and tissues. And when we drink chemicalized water, we are trying to refresh and clean the insides of our bodies. But we are also washing our innards “in here” with chlorine and other things from “out there”.

Isn’t it strange how that which is “out there” keeps coming “in here”? Our Environment (En-VIR-onment) keeps becoming our own personal Invironment (IN-vir-onment).

Almost all this pollution comes from corporate production of products and services. Much of the air and water that our bodies need has been taken by private corporations to make things they will sell us. The air and water they used was then discarded for us to breathe and drink. On good days that pollution mostly blows somewhere else, on bad days we suck it. Most days we breathe and drink at least some corporate excreta.

An accountant might classify this pollution as “unpaid costs of production.” Businesses have taken our air and water as if they were theirs to use. They have used them to make money and returned them damaged. If you rent a car and return it damaged, you will pay for the repairs. If you hire people to work for you and they get hurt and it’s your fault, you will be sued.

What happened to the money that should have been spent to return those raw materials to a usable condition? Did it really result in lower prices for the consumers? Perhaps, but much of it was also paid out as “profit” to stockholders and managers of the factories.

Does pollution really hurt? Glad you asked. Mercury and lead are common in our environment now, byproducts of commercial production processes. They both deeply affect our ultimate Invironment — our unborn children. The environment in the Smoky Mountains has become polluted with fine particulate dust. This “micro-pollution” is especially harmful to old codgers and very young people, like beautiful grandchildren. It passes directly from lung to blood (displacing oxygen) and into the brain. Ozone can “sun burn” our lungs. Autism increases directly as mercury emissions increase.

When corporations say they can reduce pollution but that would mean higher prices for us, that seems to imply these problems are really our fault. Does it actually make no difference to them? Not really. If they paid the full costs of production, a true picture of what we are buying would be available to everyone. While prices would rise for consumers, the profits would also shrink for the shareholders and corporate officers. That would reduce capital available to the company. Some shareholders would move to other investments. Many mutual funds would automatically switch through computer programming procedures.

The rising prices would affect consumers, but that would be a short-term problem the market can handle. It would not be permanent damage to our Invironment — to us and our children — like that caused by the current pollution. Cleaning up the Environment can be expensive, but cleaning up the Invironment can be even more difficult. That often results in long- term medical care, and can be even more expensive. Many of the effects of pollution continue for the lifetime of the affected children.

Finally, if the true cost of production were paid by all businesses, the market system, which is so widely endorsed and highly praised by economic conservatives, would be freer to operate as they say it should work. Then consumers would be better able to make wise choices that would yield intelligent results.

(By John Womack of Franklin, who can be reached at pathways@earthlink.net.)