I agree whole-heartedly with William Baxter’s observation, stating that our objective should not be a state of pureness, an environment free of pollution, but a world with an optimal state (lowered) pollution. In this sense he recognizes that such environmental concerns such as pollution can never be perfectly handled, but instead their detrimental effects minimized. Hilary French, on the other hand, criticizes the fact that current solutions to pollution only replace one problem with a new one, instead of resolving the crux of the issue. While I commend her for searching for a more meaningful solution to pollution, to some extent I think we must realize that most solutions for pollution –as well as most difficult decisions in life - do involve trading one problem for a lesser one. I suppose this view is utilitarian in nature, in that, though perfection may be unattainable, we strive to maximize the good and reduce the bad (pollution). Consider Baxter’s example involving the building of a dam. Whereas French may perhaps focus on the monetary cost of the dam as well as its effects on the environment, Baxter urges us to reflect on the resources which would be used in the dam’s creation. That the labor, materials, and capital goods necessary to build a dam take away the opportunity for these resources to be used for the benefit of building hospitals, schools, or even can openers must be taken into account. Perhaps considering the resources taken into account or the fact that we cannot reach a state of ecological perfection, our environmental decisions will be no different. Nevertheless, it is vital for these things to be considered in the formulation of environmental regulations. To do otherwise would be short-sighted.