Why it is in a Company's Best Interest to Reduce Environmental Waste

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
Even today tobacco is laced with nuclear waste (polonium) just so it's a little cheaper to grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't from nuclear waste. The polonium contamination in tobacco is caused by the use of the mineral apatite in fertilizer. Apatite starves the tobacco plants of nitrogen and gives them a distinct flavor.

Unfortunately, most apatite is naturally contaminated by uranium, and wherever you have uranium, you have polonium. The polonium easily becomes airborne and gets lodged into the structures of the tobacco plant.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
You just have to look at the environmental record of companies where there is no government (hint: Africa, SE Asia, Brazil) to see how strongly the free market seeks to be environmentally friendly.

The actual data, as opposed to a handful of flimsy examples (2200 tons of wood - lol), shows that profits and the environment rarely go hand in hand, especially for those likely to do the most polluting.

It's worrying when someone is prepared to sacrifice the truth to make a political point.

[/ QUOTE ]
None of the countries you listed have a history of any type of capitalism. The idea of successful anarchocapitalism presupposes that the society in question accepts that capitalism is the best system.
you're not the first person to think that though
From Borodog-
[ QUOTE ]
I've posted on this subject many times. The absence of a state does not set a society on the road to utopia. The key to anarchocapitalism is not really the "anarcho" part; it is the "capitalism" part. The West's history of capitalism and culture of property rights is what has made it wealthy, not the form of government. There can be no capitalism without property rights. The Third World is the way it is, in both Somalia (which has government, by the way; it has 4 the last time I checked), and in well over a hundred countries around the globe because there is little culture of property rights, no systems in place for establishment of title of property (ownership), or peaceful systems of resolving title disputes. Because of this, capital cannot be leveraged, there is little investment, hence most of the population stays very close to subsistence because productivity is low. Why invest in something or save if you are uncertain that you will be able to keep what you've saved or produced?

There's precious little capitalism in the Thrid World, and hence there can be no anarchocapitalism, including Somalia. Asserting that Somalia is anarchocapitalistic is simply a canard.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

Fair point, although I disagree with it. Look at the destruction of the Amazon by corporations hell bent on making a profit. I'm pretty sure Brazil has a good capitalist system and decent property rights.

There are two points in your OP, one being that it's in a corporation's interest to be environmentally friendly (which is generally true, over the long long term). However, the existence of competition, limited competencies, multiple ownership rights and finite resources over the shorter term pretty much eliminate this consideration. This can be seen in many countries around the world, where companies get leases (either privately or publicly owned) or buy land, to develop, mine or harvest wood. If one corporation doesn't do it, another will, and so capitalism is selecting for lowest common denominator, and the quickest money maker. Examples of this can be seen in state managed forest in Australia (which are managed for the long, long term, due to the state's ability to do what it wants), as compared to privately owned land which is often woodchipped like crazy and destroyed for a quick buck (even though the owner would be better off over the very long term maintaining the forest). Another example is the horrible destruction of Indonesia's forests post WWII by American corporations.

The other point to note is that corporations don't consider all uses and alternative. They have cores of expertise, and markets to fill, which demand product x now while prices are good. For example, the Amazon has tremendous wealth potential if it's preserved and managed for the long term, but a company whose business is mining or logging really isn't going to think that way. It's simply not what they do.

So I think you're missing the practical side of this discussion.