The respect for the environment, which could seem to be a trifle in a country where the ignorance and contempt directed against authorities are the highest possible, can bring an important profit to a government whose members know how to administer their funds. How many of us, who used or worked with a noxious substance, refused to throw it down the closet? How did those who hadn't had such scruples look at the photos of dead fish found in Siret or Tisa? The cyanide pollution which affected one of the most important Romanian rivers - Siret - and which was provoked by a Iasi-based private company represents the second important ecological accident of the last period In January 2000, another accident drew the Westerners' attention to us. A Baia Mare-based company, "Aurul SA", polluted Tisa with a large quantity of cyanides. Unlike Siret, Tisa is a river which gets out of Romania on its way to the Danube; even if the Siret case seems to be very mediatized, the Tisa pollution phenomenon provoked an European scandal. In a period when Romanians' most important activity is counting money and trying to live on an unsignificant salary, the care for nature can seem a trifle. However, the pragmatic European ministers allocate the environment protection very high percentages of their countries' GDP. If the EU states allocate this field percentages amounting to 1-2% of the GDP, the Romanian governments have never subzidized the same area with more than 0.1-0.2%, which is a sum derived from a very small budget. Could our budget calculation be better than that of the EU states? The analyses realized in Europe a few years ago, when pollution began being investigated from a critical point of view, indicated that a government would spend more money on solving the problems related to pollution itself than on the prevention of this phenomenon. If an investment in a mechanism meant to fi