|
|
#11
11-02-2006, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
[ QUOTE ]
The company can either pay a lot of $ to dispose of it cleanly, or pay less $ and dump it. [/ QUOTE ] Unless they get sued by the person/city/state. 
|
|
#12
11-02-2006, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
Sued where?
If they are sued by a person, a large corporation has an overwhelming advantage in the amount and quality of legal help it can muster, and it can leverage this advantage to reach a settlement which makes it very cheap for the corporation to dump waste.
|
|
#13
11-02-2006, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
[ QUOTE ]
Sued where? If they are sued by a person, a large corporation has an overwhelming advantage in the amount and quality of legal help it can muster, and it can leverage this advantage to reach a settlement which makes it very cheap for the corporation to dump waste. [/ QUOTE ] If the affected person is being compensated by the polluter, what's the problem?
|
|
#14
11-02-2006, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
The problem is, the compensation is not prohibitively expensive for the polluter, so the pollution will continue. A person may be getting compensated, but the quality of her land and living conditions will deteriorate by a much greater amount. Especially, if someone's health is affected by pollution, but it is very difficult to prove causation, the company has no incentive to stop pollution.
If the courts are deciding all disputes, and the disputes are very complicated, whoever got the most resources to hire expert witnesses, lawyers and investigators will prevail in the case, and can use this advantage to bully the little guy into accepting a pittance or risk getting nothing and/or getting bankrupt after many years of costly litigation.
|
|
#15
11-02-2006, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
>> The problem is, the compensation is not prohibitively expensive for the polluter, so the pollution will continue.
If the owner of the polluted resource is happy with the compensation, why shouldn't it continue?
|
|
#16
11-02-2006, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
I'll admit I haven't read every word of this thread, but why isn't anyone talking about the big, obvious point in all this? If corporations, as a whole, continue to trash the earth they will eventually be unable to profit at all. A company doesn't get too far without a viable ecosystem.
|
|
#17
11-02-2006, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
I haven't read this entire thread either. But companies often do not act in the environments or even their own long term best interest. Just look at big tobacco. Even today tobacco is laced with nuclear waste (polonium) just so it's a little cheaper to grow. There is no need for that. I've read several studies that show that polonium is the only substance that causes cancer in lab animals when used in isolation. Big Tobacco pays billions in lawsuits but they continue to use the nuclear waste. It's madness.
For other examples look at ford. They are killing themselves just so they can make a quick buck off of gas guzzlers. Sorry, but AC land fails miserably in this arena.
|
|
#18
11-02-2006, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
short termism in business is often if not always due to the state.
|
|
#19
11-02-2006, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
[ QUOTE ]
Just look at big tobacco. Even today tobacco is laced with nuclear waste (polonium) just so it's a little cheaper to grow. There is no need for that. [/ QUOTE ] There's also no need to smoke it. If you're too stupid to figure out that smoking is terrible for your health, you deserve to die. [ QUOTE ] Sorry, but AC land fails miserably in this arena. [/ QUOTE ] The ACists here have advocated that the externalities of fossil fuel burning be legally compensated (i.e., the oil companies get sued), and strongly promote the development of alternative energy that won't carry with it these externalities. Seems to be a lot better than the current system.
|
|
#20
11-02-2006, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why it is in a Company\'s Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Was
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Just look at big tobacco. Even today tobacco is laced with nuclear waste (polonium) just so it's a little cheaper to grow. There is no need for that. [/ QUOTE ] There's also no need to smoke it. If you're too stupid to figure out that smoking is terrible for your health, you deserve to die. [/ QUOTE ] I agree but my point is that companies don't always act in their best interest. Quarterly profits are key and not 10 year projections. Nothing shows that point better than polonium. People shouldn't be dying from tobacco. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Sorry, but AC land fails miserably in this arena. [/ QUOTE ] The ACists here have advocated that the externalities of fossil fuel burning be legally compensated (i.e., the oil companies get sued), and strongly promote the development of alternative energy that won't carry with it these externalities. Seems to be a lot better than the current system. [/ QUOTE ] It took an insane amount of federal money just to prove the CO2 was pollution. I find it very difficult to believe AC land would have gotten us this far. Seriously, would AC land have funded climate research? I can't see how that is possible. That being said if we switched over to AC right now you might be right. We might be better off. Then again good luck going up against an entity with unlimited funds in court. There is a reason why the fed government refunds your legal fees if you win in court in a case vs the feds.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
