Holding Corperations responisble for their pollution.

[Hellis]

What the title say. There is a big problem regarding the perception of companies and the effects of their especially with how many politicans with money invested into the big companies trying to discredit the research regarding the damage we are doing to our enviroment (a kind of thinking that carried onto alot of right winge voters and conservatives. Extremely evident in the state willfull ignorance and cherry picking when it comes to science.). But more concerning, is the way oil companies, with British Petroleum as fantastic example of how terrible the consequences of their actions. The giant oil spill outside the Gulf of Mexico was a environmental disaster. Well the very same company have screwed up again, this time on American with a oil lake into lake Michigan. That is a freshwater source for many of the people living in the area and the damage on the lakes ecosystem is likely to be substantial.

The question I want to pose: Just how far are we gonna let these corporations go? BP did loose a lot on their previous oil spill, something I feel is only right. But the fact is that companies get away with a lot more then they should, and the general lobby against environmentalist politics push for deregulation constantly.


Regarding the latest oilspill accident
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-bp-oil-spill-lake-michigan-20140327,0,7519350.story

[The Nexerus]

Hellis said That is a freshwater source for many of the people living in the area and the damage on the lakes ecosystem is likely to be substantial.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagrees.

To put it in perspective,

Gulf of Mexico spill: 4.9 million barrels
Lake Michigan spill (latest estimate from BP): 39 barrels

[mdk]

Willing to bet that if everybody talking about this picked up a sponge and flew up to Lake Michigan, there would be no issue within 24 hours. If what we're talking about is protecting the environment, there's your answer.

If we're talking about accountability and punishment, there's no reason that can't be executed in the free market. Buy gas from someone else. You can use this convenient tool to find your local BP-using stations -- go elsewhere. If you have done this, and you have done what you can to help clean up the lake (maybe you just send $20, Idunno), then you have as much influence as a single person should have over the affairs of a corporation. Of course, if you're the only person doing it the results will not be great, but you should reeeeeally be able to muster up a BP boycott brigade by now, there's a lot of hate for that company.

Believe me, executives respond to changes in their bottom line much faster than a proposed bill. They can lobby the government but they can't lobby you. Go get 'em. What are you waiting for?

[Protagonist]

A principle I have on corporate rights and restrictions:
Any rights you would give a person, give to corporations.
Any restrictions you would give a person, give to corporations.
So, just apply any environmental restrictions you'd put on people, and put them on corporations, and vice versa.

I have a utilitarian free-market stance on the environment. Look at the story of the Lorax, for example. If the once-ler had been environmentally responsible, he'd still be in business. Business exists to sell the Earth's natural resources to you, the consumer. They cannot do this if there are no natural resources. For that matter, being environmentally responsible does work in your favor in a marketing sense.

[Vortex]

Simple: Destroy the Corporations. Become a Marxist Society.

[Kadaeux]

I propose we encourage corporations to not just be responsible for their pollution, but to encourage them to vastly increase the amounts they're producing.

The faster we wreck this ball the faster people might be convinced to look for a new one :p

[Brovo]

It's hard to measure, quantify, and enforce an appropriate response to a corporation doing environmental damage. Our very existence as a species causes environmental damage: We need trees for homes, concrete for roads, gasoline for cars, jet fuel for jets, plastic for fucking everything, and so on. Should we punish people for cutting down trees to make log cabins, or for buying them from Home Depot for Christmas holidays? Should we levy bans on goods that use genetic modification to enhance the output of farms? Because if we do, a lot of people are going to starve to death very quickly. Should we punish people who kill animals, even if its for food or to control pest populations that would otherwise overwhelm the environment?

Yes, it sucks that oil is occasionally spilled. Yes, the companies that do that should pay for it in some manner. Do I have any idea how to do that? No. I'm not going to feign super intelligence or something else along those lines. Hell to write this post it required several hundred miles of network cables to send this data--which is using electricity to be produced--down a line to a server that is probably raping an electricity bill somewhere.

It's the price of industrialization. Without it, though, none of us would be having this conversation, and a lot more of us would be already dead due to some disease or otherwise.

That being said... A monetary fine maybe? How to enforce that, though, and what amount is "fair", is spilling oil in some areas better than in others, how do we make it price point viable for them to continue making a profit... :-\ Because remember, any increased costs thrown on a corporation, will be passed along to the consumer. If it costs 50 cents more to make a certain brand of toy for example due to new safety laws or otherwise, that 50 cent cost will be passed along to the people buying it, because the stockholders in that company sure as shit won't be happy with the bottom line getting screwed.

Bah. Too hard to think of a clear answer. Issue is not black and white. Needs further thought.

[Dervish]

Vortex said
Simple: Destroy the Corporations. Become a Marxist Society.

Because that worked so well for the USSR, China, Vietnam, and North Korea.

[Vortex]

Oh boy I love it when it comes to to this stage of the conversation where I have to explain that those countries were/not true communism/Marxism. Those countries you mentioned dervish are not true Marxist societies but a disgusting morphed form of Marxism and is closest to Stalinism or Maoism than anything else. As you realise those countries were/are a dictatorship which is the first stage of being a contradictory pseudo-communist society. The second everyone is equal... But some people are more equal than others, for there are plenty of/are starving families in those particular countries while the pseudo-communist elite dine with fine foods and wines. May I also mention in a Marxist society there would be no money, all those countries fail amazingly at that one, for money leads to capitalism wether it is Stalins state capitalism or China's Capitalism it makes no difference.

Apologies for that little rant, I just find it my duty to tell people the difference between those countries and a true Marxist society.

[Dervish]

I am well aware. But as they say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Do you think any of the revolutionaries expected to end up in a dictatorship? No. But that's what happens when you throw a select few people in absolute power. The whole Marxism thing has been tried before and inevitably ended up in a totalitarian hell, regardless of what inspired it.

As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

The only people who are predisposed to Marxism are either desperate, poor, or don't know any better, as it's historically been a disaster every time. I can guarantee most in the developed world, very few would be willing to pay the cost to attempt to transition to that kind of government.

Regardless, there's several million lost souls who would argue semantics over what you'd call the government that killed them.

Also, about the no money thing; how do you propose to create incentives for people actually working hard, or going into highly educated or demanding fields when theoretically a guy digging ditches would be entitled to the same incentives as a doctor, or the chief of defense staff? In the USSR, in particular, workplace productivity was very hit and miss, as people realized that being recognized for your hard work was a bad thing, because you'd be expected to maintain that pace/ quota without anything to show for it. Ever work a really shitty retail job (or equivilant) where you felt like you aren't paid enough to care? Now apply that to every occupation across an entire nation.

[Jannah]

Dervish said
I am well aware. But as they say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Do you think any of the revolutionaries expected to end up in a dictatorship? No. But that's what happens when you throw a select few people in absolute power. The whole Marxism thing has been tried before and inevitably ended up in a totalitarian hell, regardless of what inspired it. As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." The only people who are predisposed to Marxism are either desperate, poor, or don't know any better, as it's historically been a disaster every time. I can guarantee most in the developed world, very few would be willing to pay the cost to attempt to transition to that kind of government.Regardless, there's several million lost souls who would argue semantics over what you'd call the government that killed them.

But we can't overlook the fact that capitalism continues to kill people every day. It's not a one-way street. We can't pretend like Marxism is some evil demon here.

[Dervish]

Jannah said
But we can't overlook the fact that capitalism continues to kill people every day. It's not a one-way street. We can't pretend like Marxism is some evil demon here.

And I'm not advocating the capitalism is the answer, either. Personally, I quite admire the concept of democratic socialism, and I think that currently, the Nordic countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden figured out what's arguably the best system, considering how they consistently rank at the top of the happiest citizens with the best quality of life.

Case in point as a mark against capitalism, for a quick example; Iran's current shitty, anti-Western Islamic government was installed by the US and Britain because the moderate, actually sensible one didn't want to open up its oil reserves to exploitation, so the US and Britain more or less toppled that government and installed one that was much more willing to play ball and sell.

[Vortex]

Of course the revolutionaries did not want it to be a dictatorship and yes I agree that's what happens when you create a oligarchy but that is, like I said not true Marxism. Anyhow not true Marxism has been tried and since the world now hates communists I doubt we will ever get another go.

As to what Churchill said, yes all the other systems tried so far have not been as good as democracy but Marxism has not been tried.

And yes I have to agree with you most people have been taught to fight against communism from a early age.

[Jannah]

Dervish said
And I'm not advocating the capitalism is the answer, either. Personally, I quite admire the concept of democratic socialism, and I think that currently, the Nordic countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden figured out what's arguably the best system, considering how they consistently rank at the top of the happiest citizens with the best quality of life.Case in point as a mark against capitalism, for a quick example; Iran's current shitty, anti-Western Islamic government was installed by the US and Britain because the moderate, actually sensible one didn't want to open up its oil reserves to exploitation, so the US and Britain more or less toppled that government and installed one that was much more willing to play ball and sell.

Well at least you're consistent. Way too many people condemn Marxism while giving capitalism a free pass for all the atrocities it's responsible for on the basis it's "just business". It's because of shit like that I fully admit to having very little trust of anybody who is wealthy. It's just natural since they have screwed me over personally too many times.

Also, as much as I like aspects of Sweden's system it does still rely on exploitation of the Third World and that is not something I can agree with.

[Dervish]

Vortex said
And yes I have to agree with you most people have been taught to fight against communism from a early age.

I never said that.

[The Nexerus]

Jannah said
Well at least you're consistent. Way too many people condemn Marxism while giving capitalism a free pass for all the atrocities it's responsible for on the basis it's "just business". It's because of shit like that I fully admit to having very little trust of anybody who is wealthy. It's just natural since they have screwed me over personally too many times. Also, as much as I like aspects of Sweden's system it does still rely on exploitation of the Third World and that is not something I can agree with.

What about Sweden's economy relies on "the exploitation of the third world"?

[Vortex]

Dervish said
I never said that.

Lol yeah sorry, I didn't mean that YOU said that, I mean that yes I agree with you that people would not want to go to the communist system because I believe they have been taught to fight against it.

[Vortex]

The Nexerus said
What about Sweden's economy relies on "the exploitation of the third world"?

Please don't tell me your advocating this

[Dervish]

Jannah said
Well at least you're consistent. Way too many people condemn Marxism while giving capitalism a free pass for all the atrocities it's responsible for on the basis it's "just business". It's because of shit like that I fully admit to having very little trust of anybody who is wealthy. It's just natural since they have screwed me over personally too many times. Also, as much as I like aspects of Sweden's system it does still rely on exploitation of the Third World and that is not something I can agree with.

Although like most people I may subconsciously have bias towards one thing or another, I do try to keep an open mind about both sides of an issue. Personally, the sentiment of "it's just business" rather disgusts me and I don't think profit should ever trump civil, personal, environmental, or other ethical concerns. I have no problems with businesses being successful, but I do think there needs to be controls in place to monitor that they are keeping to ethical practices and meeting environmental criteria. I understand that in a lot of cases, it's not perfect and you can't do much to avoid a certain process from being a harmful pollutant, but you can take steps to limit it and create incentives towards a transition to less harmful practices.

I can fully respect your personal situation, and I know I got very fucking lucky with the circumstances of my life. You hear all the time about how costly it is to be poor and how hard it is to actually break free of poverty. I think a lot of people don't realize that people aren't there by choice and are certainly trying to break out of that cycle. For instance, if you live in a city, housing is usually very expensive, and what little pay you make often goes to rent. If you live in the suburbs or the country, your options for transportation are limited. If you can afford a car, you have to pay way more money to upkeep the damn thing if you bought it cheaply used because it is going to fail, and so on. Back before I got my current job, I worked at a shitty, bottom barrel retail job and was trying to live in apartment with two room mates, where we split the rent three ways. I eventually had to move back home because I couldn't afford to live like that. I had to pay probably 400-800 dollars a year fixing something on my car, having health problems caused me to have quite a few sick days which you don't get paid for, and a bunch of other factors made it literally impossible to save money to afford better living conditions. It was a struggle just to break even every month, and I was glad I was able to move back with my parents, because I was able to get my life back on track there. A lot of people don't have that option, so what do they do?

The world isn't a perfect place, so instead of trying to change everything at once, it's a lot easier to focus on the things that can be fixed first.

[The Nexerus]

Vortex said
Please don't tell me your advocating this

Advocating what? I was asking a question.

Dervish said
Although like most people I may subconsciously have bias towards one thing or another, I do try to keep an open mind about both sides of an issue. Personally, the sentiment of "it's just business" rather disgusts me and I don't think profit should ever trump civil, personal, environmental, or other ethical concerns. I have no problems with businesses being successful, but I do think there needs to be controls in place to monitor that they are keeping to ethical practices and meeting environmental criteria. I understand that in a lot of cases, it's not perfect and you can't do much to avoid a certain process from being a harmful pollutant, but you can take steps to limit it and create incentives towards a transition to less harmful practices.

You're the archetype of a reasonable person.