 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Arrian and I come to the same conclusion from the opposite sides of the proverbial fence. I from an industry backgorund (and pro-industry obviously) and Arrian from an enforcement adjudication perspective. A mix IS required. IMHO, to date, however, the regulatory mindset has been primarily heavy on the stick towards industry with little to no carrot, with pro-indsutry lobby groups carving out exemptions for specific industries. |
Clarification: I work for an insurance company, handling long-tail environmental claims. We're neutral, I'd say, with regard to the regulation/incentive issue.
The insurance side of this has to do with the courts' interpretations of insurance contacts vis-a-vis environmental cleanups (i.e. rulings on the various pollution exclusions, is environmental damage caused by dribs and drabs over decades an "accident" etc).
EDIT:
What this experience has done for me is give me an idea of what the contamination situation is like and show me that no matter how we structure the law, the people of the USofA end up paying for all of this anyway.
People get all fired up about "making polluters pay!" Ultimately, however, polluters often turn out to be mom & pop businesses, or major employers... or long out of business (and that doesn't even get into the consumer themselves polluting). Money for cleanups ends up coming in a mixture from the government, any remaining still-solvent PRPs (potentially responsible parties) and their insurers. Government = people (taxes). Insurers = people who carrying insurance = nearly everyone (higher premiums). And companies don't exist in a vaccum either.
Thus, in the end, the cost ends up back on the taxpayer ANYWAY. I'm looking for proactive solutions to reduce the cost overall, rather than doing battle for some notion of justice.
-Arrian
Last edited by Arrian on 09-12-2004 at 02:28
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Is what you say real? I don't think so. |
Very real. Consider. To drill an offshore oil well you need to do an environmental assessment. The "environment" has become an industry all onto itself and environmental compliance companies do quite well.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Polution is at an very unacceptable level, and we have trouble with the economy. |
I agree that pollution is at unacceptable levels and the United States is having trouble with its economy . Canada's economy is doing ok. I just reject that there is NECESSARILY a direct correlation between pollution and economic growth. Obviously there has been such a linkage as companies industrialized and we therefore expect even more pollution from India China etc as they modernize .. .But imagine if I invented a cheap $100 doohickey that could cut all car emissions by half. The result might be that Alberta pollution stayed the same but our economy grew from selling 20 million units to California. In California, pollution drops sharply even though the economy may be skyrocketing.
NOT all industries are major polluters and the US could curb pollution by major amounts if the consumers would end their love affairs with the big SUVs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh Christ. |
Interesting exclaimation. I would have figured you for an atheist.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
. Do you not understand that we get more polution with more consumption. |
Yes and NO. Increased consumption of bicycles and mass transit may result in a minor pollution increase ( manufacturing more bicycles-- I assume no new buses required yet) but this would be more than offset by the pollution decrease from people driving less.
At an individual level there are many things that people can do to decrease pollution which do not negatively impact economic growth. In fact people recycling has created a recycling industry which creates profit and REDUCES pollution
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
\ Therefore anti-polution is related to economic growth. Where the hell do you get your ideas? |
From reality. Unfortunately, you do not see that absolutes rarely apply. Thats why I reject your notion that growth necessarily means more pollution. It usually does but the corerelation can be broken
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I think a 'genuine' revolution has to sweep away he old order completely, and in order to do that you need more than love, because they are going to come after you. |
See .. . its comments like this one that gets Vel all riled up and talking about re-education camps and executions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
Oh and the free market and democracy is actually starting to slowly ( perhaps too slowly) to take steps on social responsibility issues. There are funds out there that invest only in "green" companies and consumers that buy the "greener" products. If enough people cared enough about the issue, stricter environmental standards would be applied PLUS more companies would see the profit in being "green". Its a slow slow process.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-12-2004 01:59
|