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)

One must be careful though to target just two industries though. I bet there will be several lawsuits about corporate discrimination and such. All that will do is prolong the incident and the environment will not be fixed. J-Fed 16:28, 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)

YES!!, This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to. This plus Jason's suggestions equals the industries that are so harmful either changing to be more green or out of business. Either way the environment is the benefactor. Murphy44 16:25, 7 March 2008 (EST)

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

That, unfortunately is the rub, Jfed.. but it's a fact of life, businesses are going to fail. I am quite disgusted by the tradition of "corporate welfare" in America. I'm aware of how devastating bankruptcies and insolvencies are to workers, investors, but so is having an ailing company hemorrhaging government cash in all directions and continuing to do damage to consumers and people in its vicinity with inefficient practices. As per the Superfund, Dr. Walker, I am generally in agreement with it, though i would like to extend it to leveraging the credit lines of companies that have been particularly troublesome. Fine a company $10,000 a day when it's making ten times that much profit, they will simply carry on. Hit them in the credit line or start applying pressure on their assetts, and they start paying attention a bit faster. --JGrinst21 16:30, 7 March 2008 (EST)

One must be careful though to target just two industries though. I bet there will be several lawsuits about corporate discrimination and such. All that will do is prolong the incident and the environment will not be fixed in the mean time. J-Fed 16:29, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I agree, this could be borderline profiling, this is why a set of standards that is backed up by law is needed that will uphold the same ideals that we are all taking about. Now if in those laws are fines based upon the companies profit lines then Jasons ideas are sound. Murphy44 16:41, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Another site in my town was heavily contaminated (if you've had heavy industry since 1720, it's not surprising), this time with PAHs. The UK government solved the problem in a very interesting way. They held a garden festival every two years on a polluted industrial site that had been cleaned up, and in 1990 this site was chosen for the National Garden Festival. The million or so visitors to the festival gardens and events paid for the cleanup that created the garden site. Afterwards, the site can be used as urban parkland. That's what I consider a creative solution! Walkerma 16:32, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Oh, and my band got a gig out of it!

Still, we seem to be moving into dealing with the present. Sounds like you're advocating using a stick on people who bend the environmental rules, is that right? Walkerma 16:39, 7 March 2008 (EST)

One of the biggest things that I see is that there needs to be sound performance measures. Dorff talks about this in Chapter 23. "Good information enables decision makers to make good decisions and measure the actual results of their actions" (Dorff 427). This can be applied to the government, individuals and businesses. Even global benchmarks for these measures would be helpful for some. J-Fed 16:34, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Social investing is another thing that needs to be addressed. I agree with what Jason said about corporate America. The social responsibility has been lost. More seminars, speakers, reports, articles and news coverage is necessary to turn investors and consumers around. This is a major issue and requires a lot of disciplines. J-Fed 16:39, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Good point! Making it worthwhile for people to focus on the environment is a Good Thing. The carrot to go with the stick. Walkerma 16:43, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Exactly! Once people see what is going on they will respond, positively or negatively. J-Fed 16:46, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Quick, someone call Michael Moore! Joking aside, I was bringing up better ways to punish commercial concerns that are manufacturing or selling problematic products (from batteries to whole computers), because there are increasingly a lot of carrots available to them. Grants, tax breaks, etc. for companies using "green" technologies. Behavior modification requires both punishment and reward in order to work. As for the public awareness portion, let me be blunt here. The quality of most science reporting I see in mass media these days is terrible. I know it's difficult to report what's going on, in industry and ecology, to a population with an average of a 3rd grade science education, but ye gods.. everything is either whitewashed, buried in padded jargon and doublespeak, or just plain reduced and oversimplified to the point of no longer applying to the argument. More money for high schools, anyone? --JGrinst21 16:46, 7 March 2008 (EST)

You beat me to it, Dr. Walker. --JGrinst21 16:47, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I recall when they phased out leaded gas in the UK, which started out as cheaper than unleaded. They taxed leaded gas higher, and used the extra money to lower the taxes on unleaded, making it cheaper than leaded. Everyone I knew had their car switched over very quickly to save money. Very simple approach, but very effective. If this is linked with Jesse's sound performance measures, you have a very powerful way to move in the right direction. Walkerma 16:49, 7 March 2008 (EST)

• The No Child Left Behind Act has failed lol

Yes, those that bend the rules should have to pay for it somehow. And the example you just gave Dr. Walker is an excellent one. J-Fed 16:51, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Now were talking about changing the level of education nationwide, not that I disagree with that at all, but what about countries where there is no standard for education? How are we going to encourage developing countries to go green? Murphy44 16:51, 7 March 2008 (EST)

It's a pressed issue. I don't know if is possible to facilitate those standards for poorer countries unless a big Green Company moves there and provides them with jobs and eco-efficient practices. J-Fed 16:54, 7 March 2008 (EST)

We should do as much as we can though to help educate those people and regions. We are all in this together. "The one thing in common with a struggling world is freedom." I believe that that applies to all walks and aspects of life. J-Fed 16:56, 7 March 2008 (EST)

What do you do in places where they don't particularly want your help, Jfed? --JGrinst21 16:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I don't want to get sidetracked into another topic. I'd like to close with a question about the tragedy of the commons issue I mentioned. When "everyone" (aka no one!) is responsible, who pays? What mechanisms can be used?

The tragedy of the commons is just that in, sooner or later, everyone pays. We all either cough up part of a paycheck, or we can spend it on life insurance premiums and higher medical bills instead. I'm going for taxes here, who's with me? --JGrinst21 16:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)