Was it a false premise to rein in toxic waste dumping, rather than just concentrating on clean-up technologies? There's that old adage about 'an ounce of preve

Was it a false premise to rein in toxic waste dumping, rather than just concentrating on clean-up technologies? There's that old adage about 'an ounce of prevention', which I think is even more apt in cases such as this, where the 'pound of cure' is an as-yet-undeveloped technology. Mathematically, yes, you could focus on sequestration. But policy-wise, it's inviting disaster to defer today's problems as something to be solved with tomorrow's advancements. And even if a suitable 'pound of cure' is found, it will almost certainly be dramatically more expensive to fix the problem, to say nothing of fixing the collateral damage caused in the interim.