a friend of mine

[Jared]

wants to know what would prevent factories and such from killing the environment if there was no regulation (never mind that the regulation isn't helping much as it is, but let's just indulge him  a little here).

[Crocuta]

The answer is restitution.  When companies pollute and harm results, the individuals, not the corporations, who made the decision to pollute should be required to compensate those harmed.  If rivers were owned by individuals, for example, a company dumping toxic waste into the river would be causing measurable harm to the private property of a person or group of people.

If companies were required to pay the actual cost of cleanup of pollution, the cost would be so high that the economically better solution would be to not pollute in the first place.  As it is now, companies pollute with relative impunity.

I'll give you an example.  Weyerhaeuser Corp operates a paper pulp mill in my county.  It lies along the Chehalis River, a major waterway that dumps into the harbor and eventually into the Pacific Ocean.  In 1999 they made a decision to dump wastewater containing high levels of fecal coliform bacteria into the Chehalis River.  They knew the water wasn't processed properly yet, but they were having some equipment problems and the easiest way to get around it was to open the gates and flush the contaminated process water into the river.  There are oyster beds in the harbor, and it's used for fishing, recreation and so on.

The Washington State Department of Ecology fined them $10,000 for the intentional release of contaminated water.  That's nothing to Weyerhaeuser.  They would have spent more than that to fix the problem properly.  It's just a cost of doing business.  By the way, they do that all the time.  It's not an isolated incident.  In the mid '90's they were fined $500 for dumping 500 pounds of sodium hydroxide into the same river.  Examples go on.

Now imagine if they had to pay restitution to the osyter farmers for damage to the beds, and restitution to fishermen who owned fishing rights in a given section of river, and hospital bills for kids who got sick from ingesting fecal coliform bacteria.  The cost becomes so high that it's cheaper to dispose of the waste properly.

[error]

Oh my god, libertarians would actually protect the environment from those evil polluting corporations for REAL?!?

[cathleeninnh]

The answer is restitution.  When companies pollute and harm results, the individuals, not the corporations, who made the decision to pollute should be required to compensate those harmed.  If rivers were owned by individuals, for example, a company dumping toxic waste into the river would be causing measurable harm to the private property of a person or group of people.

If companies were required to pay the actual cost of cleanup of pollution, the cost would be so high that the economically better solution would be to not pollute in the first place.  As it is now, companies pollute with relative impunity.

I'll give you an example.  Weyerhaeuser Corp operates a paper pulp mill in my county.  It lies along the Chehalis River, a major waterway that dumps into the harbor and eventually into the Pacific Ocean.  In 1999 they made a decision to dump wastewater containing high levels of fecal coliform bacteria into the Chehalis River.  They knew the water wasn't processed properly yet, but they were having some equipment problems and the easiest way to get around it was to open the gates and flush the contaminated process water into the river.  There are oyster beds in the harbor, and it's used for fishing, recreation and so on.

The Washington State Department of Ecology fined them $10,000 for the intentional release of contaminated water.  That's nothing to Weyerhaeuser.  They would have spent more than that to fix the problem properly.  It's just a cost of doing business.  By the way, they do that all the time.  It's not an isolated incident.  In the mid '90's they were fined $500 for dumping 500 pounds of sodium hydroxide into the same river.  Examples go on.

Now imagine if they had to pay restitution to the osyter farmers for damage to the beds, and restitution to fishermen who owned fishing rights in a given section of river, and hospital bills for kids who got sick from ingesting fecal coliform bacteria.  The cost becomes so high that it's cheaper to dispose of the waste properly.

I have also run across cases of a company choosing to pay a fine rather than do something correctly. But I wonder, does that really relieve them of the liability for the harm done? Are people suing for restitution or are they barred from doing so?

Cathleen

[MaineShark]

I have also run across cases of a company choosing to pay a fine rather than do something correctly. But I wonder, does that really relieve them of the liability for the harm done? Are people suing for restitution or are they barred from doing so?

In many (all?) cases, companies who "pay up" to the government are granted immunity from prosecution by individuals, as part of the law.  Which is why they are in favor of these regulations.

Joe

[powerchuter]

I have also run across cases of a company choosing to pay a fine rather than do something correctly. But I wonder, does that really relieve them of the liability for the harm done? Are people suing for restitution or are they barred from doing so?

In many (all?) cases, companies who "pay up" to the government are granted immunity from prosecution by individuals, as part of the law.  Which is why they are in favor of these regulations.

Joe

Right!

In the case of a 100% non-aggressive, free-market community one person could sample(voluntarily and on their own initiative) the discharge fluid from any/all inputs into the river/stream/lake/pond/water supply.  They would check and confirm any problems, then involve others who rely on the water supply, and they would first ask the polluter to eliminate the problem.  Obviously, polluting the water supply is an act of aggression so those relying on the water supply would take defensive measures as necessary to solve the problem.  This is only common sense and self-preservation.

As Joe said, currently the government actually protects polluters(especially since the government is, by far, the biggest polluter!  Can anyone say depleted uranium!?!  I'll bet you can!

[error]

And that's why I support eliminating Nixon's Environmental Pollution Agency and such protections for polluters.

[Jared]

would you say that government on some level is necessary as the entity that would force these companies to pay restitution? is there a way to do this without any government involvement?

[powerchuter]

would you say that government on some level is necessary as the entity that would force these companies to pay restitution? is there a way to do this without any government involvement?

Picture this...
Jared's chemical company has been found to be polluting the water source of the local community(where all the employees live)...  The people come to you asking for you to fix the problem and clean up the damage(any active and residual contamination)...

Why would you do anything other than make it "right" with your community and employees?

And, as a side note...
Polluting the water supply, intentionally or not, is an aggressive or libelous action...

The water drinkers can and will defend their clean water with defensive force...

Get the picture!?!

[Crocuta]

I have also run across cases of a company choosing to pay a fine rather than do something correctly. But I wonder, does that really relieve them of the liability for the harm done? Are people suing for restitution or are they barred from doing so?

Cathleen

They can't sue for restitution individually because they don't actually own the river, or the fish, or the osyter beds.  The state does, and it exacted the penalty that it felt was appropriate, pathetic as it might be.

[MaineShark]

They can't sue for restitution individually because they don't actually own the river, or the fish, or the osyter beds.  The state does, and it exacted the penalty that it felt was appropriate, pathetic as it might be.

The state doesn't own the river, fish, or oyster beds, any more than a car theif "owns" the car he just stole.

Of course, the phrase "possession is nine-tenths of the law" makes a lot of sense when you think of who "the law" really is...

Joe

[Jared]

would you say that government on some level is necessary as the entity that would force these companies to pay restitution? is there a way to do this without any government involvement?

Picture this...
Jared's chemical company has been found to be polluting the water source of the local community(where all the employees live)...  The people come to you asking for you to fix the problem and clean up the damage(any active and residual contamination)...

Why would you do anything other than make it "right" with your community and employees?

And, as a side note...
Polluting the water supply, intentionally or not, is an aggressive or libelous action...

The water drinkers can and will defend their clean water with defensive force...

Get the picture!?!

yeah, that makes sense.