Talk:Chem395:March 7 discussion

This will be the seventh in the discussion series. See Chem395:Unit_6 and the discussion topic for background.

Agenda

• We will start by considering historic sites such as Love Canal.
• Then we will consider new problems of pollution and waste - the limitations of "polluter pays" and the tragedy of the commons.

Discussion

I'm here J-Fed 15:58, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Me Too!! Murphy44 16:00, 7 March 2008 (EST)

OK, let's start. How should we deal with environmental problems from the past. For example, in my home town a few years ago (the one with collapsing mine shafts), they found an area of land with very cadmium contamination left over from a Victorian plant. How should that be dealt with? Walkerma 16:02, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I feel as if all possible efforts should be made to clean up the mess. Even if this means government subsidies. Murphy44 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Whether or not the current generation is responsible for the mess is somewhat irrelevant, the damage has been done and it needs to be dealt with accordingly. Murphy44 16:06, 7 March 2008 (EST)

In the case of historic sites, such as love canal, the issue of who should pay should first be applied to those who practiced faulty or cheapskate business methods/ practices. The public was adversely affected and should not be held responsible for something they had no idea of. This is not to say that the public is exempt from payments. I believe that fines should be imposed on businesses or on individuals who decide to ignore environmental standards/ laws etc. In the case of the batteries, or something similar, it seems that a fine should be imposed on those that create, and knowingly use the product. There are rechargeable batteries out there that last longer than certain cadmium batteries. J-Fed 16:07, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Regarding the historic sites, do you have any suggestions on how to pay for this? Should we just raise the local taxes? Raise national taxes? Any other ways? Walkerma 16:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Businesses or corporations need to adopt the TFSC (Three-factor standard) to measure their "performance: financial, environmental and social" (Dorff 434). They should use this as a learning system and information system. There needs to be a clear vision, customer satisfaction, growth/learning, different processes for the business, and then the financial, social and environmental standards. J-Fed 16:11, 7 March 2008 (EST)

New policies or money from other taxes should be lowered and put into new areas of the government/economy. Taxes shouldn't necessarily be raised, but allocated and partitioning certain ones is more beneficial for the people and companies. J-Fed 16:12, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I feel as if current environmental violations should fund the cleanup of past mistakes. So, when a company is charged for overstepping their bounds environmentally and gets charged for it, this money is allocated towards past cleanup projects.Murphy44 16:15, 7 March 2008 (EST)

The QOL (Quality of life) "can be measured and improved through community action. many cities, states and entire countries now monitor QOL and publish regular reports with more beginning each year"(Dorff 435). Community involvement and government intervention is necessary to prevent such accidents (mines, landfills, toxicity) from occurring.J-Fed 16:15, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I feel that QOL is the next generation of standards by which environmental well being will be upheld through environmental education. Murphy44 16:17, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I agree Chris, that's a great idea!J-Fed 16:15, 7 March 2008 (EST)

what about something a little more subtle? Levy fines and additional fees/taxes on creditors and investors who participate and fund these industries. Admittedly, this is going to go less toward fixing and paying for current cleanups, and more toward encouraging corporations and credit firms to be a bit more wary of what they pay into. If you start strangling the available credit lines of industries that are wilfully damaging the environment, they will be forced to reform or go bankrupt. -Jason

I agree, hit the harmful industries where it hurts them the most. That may the only way to get real change, to drive the offenders out of the marketplace. Murphy44 16:19, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks for joining us, Jason! These sound like good ideas to me. What do you think of the Superfund idea, which is pretty similar? In the US scheme, taxes are levied on the oil/chemical industries of today to pay for the cleanup of the toxic wastes of yesterday. Is this a good approach? Walkerma 16:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

That is definitely possible Jason. Some of these companies though will still go under because they simply cannot switch over to more environmentally friendly practices. With new regulations and such from the federal government and its agencies (EPA) it will be very hard for certain businesses to survive anyway. The QOL for companies should "not just measure economic growth, but the things that make life fulfilling. It should measure outputs, rather than inputs, drive citizen groups, business groups, and local governments. Measurable goals should be instituted with clear objectives and management procedures" (Dorff 436). J-Fed 16:23, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I agree with the Superfund approach. It is sound and effective. J-Fed 16:24, 7 March 2008 (EST)