double standard for volcanoes and factories

mount st. helens is washington state's number one polluter, producing between fifty and two-hundred and fifty tons of sulfur dioxide per day. although the state's regulators can't technically fine a volcano, it doesn't seem like they are taking active measures to prevent the release of these gases. one official astutely observes that "you can't put a cork in it." how true.

what is this distinction between natural and human-made "polluters"? sulfur dioxide is sulfur dioxide, no matter its origins, and it causes acid rain regardless. regulators can't just plug up the hole, but they could construct the same types of scrubbers and processors that are required in private factories. if such requirements are made of factories producing much less sulfur dioxide, why not install such an apparatus on the volcano? of course, development, installation, and operation costs for such a device on a volcano would be expensive. however, regulators don't shrink from requiring factories to create and install extremely expensive environmentally-friendly devices, so there must be some other distinction. why won't we ever put a cap on mount st. helens?

what about intent? the volcano doesn't really want to produce sulfur dioxide. it has no will of its own. the volcano doesn't really know it is releasing sulfur dioxide into the environment, and doesn't care; it's not a moral agent. although companies as a whole aren't moral agents, their executives sure are. then again, pollution is only a byproduct of production for factories, not their goal, either.

installing pollution-control equipment on mount st. helens - and passing a tax to do so - would be impossible because of the direct expense. it's a more obvious and direct cost than those levied on factories. the complete - and huge - environmental regulation costs for factories are not voted on or paid for in taxes out of a state budget. instead, the costs are passed on in higher prices for electricity, toys, paper, etc. in essence it seems like the same thing.

in addition to the cost, the device would be ugly and would decrease the public's enjoyment of a national treasure. it seems most people have strong intuitive objections to tampering with nature, or at least the appearance of nature, to such a large degree. factories are already ugly, and were never revered for their beauty. factories never attracted millions of ($$$) tourists into their states. mount st. helens brings in almost five million visitors per year, and that’s a lot of revenue.