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
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)
- Weather 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)
- 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)
- 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)
