• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is the government the major polluter or are individuals?

G

gdalton

I would have to guess that the total sum of private individuals and business would probably end up causing more pollution then the gov. But you would have to find a lot of numbers to figure out the correct answer.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
George, interesting question. Why do you ask? My husband does environmental enforcement for the Dept. of Justice. I will ask him this question and report back tomorrow.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I do not know where the government pollutes more than the private sector as a whole (I doubt it). However, it is orthodoxy of many right-wing blogs that the US government is the single biggest polluter in the world. While I can't vouch for the credibility of that statement, it wouldn't surprise me if it is true.

It seems to me that the most effective way to stop environmental degradation isn't to heavily regulate businesses. It's to simply put a "pollution tax" on products that is roughly proportional to the estimated amount of damage their production or use will do to the environment. People might be less likely to pollute if they had to pay for the ACTUAL cost of manufacturing, including environmental cleanup.

I'm a libertarian and I'm usually against tax increases...but this idea hardly seems like a tax and more like paying for cleaning up after yourself.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I was just wondering cause I once read an article on the Internet about how the government pollutes far more than the private sector does and that the EPA is a useless program. I can't seem to find that article though.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
George_Washington said:
I was just wondering cause I once read an article on the Internet about how the government pollutes far more than the private sector does and that the EPA is a useless program. I can't seem to find that article though.

Okay, George, I asked the hubster this question. He said that the part of the government that causes the most pollution is the Dept. of Defense. He said that power plants (particularly coal-fired power plants) contribute about 50% of the air pollution (which plants are all privately owned). That does not include other private industry that has an impact on air quality. He said that he could not provide an honest answer since he did not fully understand the pollution caused by the government.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Both are eqaully responsible for pollution. With the Gov't and its power plants, to big companies and their 18-wheel trucks, to the average joe in his/her beat up car, we all pollute. So I wouldn't lay the blame on just one group.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
24,448
Reaction score
15,469
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Kandahar said:
I do not know where the government pollutes more than the private sector as a whole (I doubt it). However, it is orthodoxy of many right-wing blogs that the US government is the single biggest polluter in the world. While I can't vouch for the credibility of that statement, it wouldn't surprise me if it is true.

It seems to me that the most effective way to stop environmental degradation isn't to heavily regulate businesses. It's to simply put a "pollution tax" on products that is roughly proportional to the estimated amount of damage their production or use will do to the environment. People might be less likely to pollute if they had to pay for the ACTUAL cost of manufacturing, including environmental cleanup.

I'm a libertarian and I'm usually against tax increases...but this idea hardly seems like a tax and more like paying for cleaning up after yourself.

Anything that you hear from a right wing blog on the environment is probably not very credible. The government pollutes more than any one company. However, there are industries that pollute far more than the government does. Moreover, if it were not for government oversight, regulations, and mandates, pollution from private industries would be far greater than it is today. You have to remember that for most industries, there is no economic incentive whatsoever not to pollute absent regulations and public oversight.

Durring the 90s, The Superfund was well funded by polluting industries to clean up toxic brownfieds. The Bush administration has shifted that financial burden from the industries who create those toxic brownfields to the taxpayers.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
24,448
Reaction score
15,469
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
George_Washington said:
I was just wondering cause I once read an article on the Internet about how the government pollutes far more than the private sector does and that the EPA is a useless program. I can't seem to find that article though.

The government does not pollute more than the private sector. The government does pollute more than any single company though. That makes perfect sense when one considers the size of the government. However, several industries pollute far more than the government does. Coal power plants are a perfect example of this.

Ok, if you take away the EPA, how are you going to prevent industries from polluting?
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
The government does not pollute more than the private sector. The government does pollute more than any single company though. That makes perfect sense when one considers the size of the government. However, several industries pollute far more than the government does. Coal power plants are a perfect example of this.

Ok, if you take away the EPA, how are you going to prevent industries from polluting?

I don't know, good question. I wouldn't want to take it away completely but I am considering whether or not just leave it up to the states to save tax dollars. What would you think of that?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
24,448
Reaction score
15,469
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
George_Washington said:
I don't know, good question. I wouldn't want to take it away completely but I am considering whether or not just leave it up to the states to save tax dollars. What would you think of that?

Ok, but if you do that, would poor states not just steal industry away from rich states by having little or no environmental oversight?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
24,448
Reaction score
15,469
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
George_Washington said:
Hmmm...good point. I don't know, do you think they would?

I am sure they would. I mean its really just basic economics. Poor states like Mississippi would steal polluting industries away from richer states by having little or no environmental enforcement. Richer states would then lure in better whitecollar businesses because of the better quality of life that they would have as compared to heavily polluted poor states.

That is why having federal environmental enforcement is a necessity to level the playing field and ensure that wealth and income is not the determining factor as to whether someone has clean air to breath or clean water to drink. The EPA was started under the Nixon administration and in the last 30 years our air and water has gotten a lot cleaner. We still have a long ways to go, but 30 years ago, very few lakes and rivers near any sort of development or agriculture were safe to consume fish from. Today, thousands of rivers and lakes that at one time had consumption advisories on them, are now safe.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
George, interesting question. Why do you ask? My husband does environmental enforcement for the Dept. of Justice. I will ask him this question and report back tomorrow.

can you ask your Husband why is this mess not cleaned up

the Ford motor company refusses to move on the issue

http://www.toxiclegacy.com
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Canuck said:
can you ask your Husband why is this mess not cleaned up

the Ford motor company refusses to move on the issue

http://www.toxiclegacy.com

Canuck, I couldn't get into that site. What's the problem?
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
www.toxiclegacy.com. I was able to access it, and I'm not the least bit surprised at the material on it.

Why?

Because most big businesses don't care about the trash they leave behind or the lives that they hurt. This has been happening for years, but the American voters, who outnumber the Gov't, just sit and watch the big businesses and the gov't put the hump to 'em.

I'm not saying to cause a revolution, just to apply more pressure on politicians to do their job and to put partisan politics aside.
 

zk655

New member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would imagine that everyone is responsible for pollution. But the government is responsible for pulling back and weakening environmental laws that were helping to reduce pollution levels and holding violators accountable.
 

Ima Troll

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
George_Washington said:
Who do you guys think pollutes the enviroment more? Private companies and people or the government?
are you referring to psychological polution or physical? the answers may vary
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
SouthernDemocrat said:
Anything that you hear from a right wing blog on the environment is probably not very credible. The government pollutes more than any one company. However, there are industries that pollute far more than the government does. Moreover, if it were not for government oversight, regulations, and mandates, pollution from private industries would be far greater than it is today. You have to remember that for most industries, there is no economic incentive whatsoever not to pollute absent regulations and public oversight.

But a pollution tax would CREATE that economic incentive without relying on regulations. If companies expect to make money, they always charge consumers more than the cost of production. But since they don't usually have to pay to clean up after themselves, the prices they charge don't TRULY reflect the cost of production. By charging the manufacturer or the consumer a "pollution tax," the economic incentive would exist for companies to pollute as little as possible without forcing excessive legal burdens on them.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://www.toxiclegacy.com
toxic legacies of Companies like Ford motor company on that site
and others

show that american polution agencies are a scam the people slush fund for
pocket change for the candidates

As long as you dont take to the streets HOw can freedom ring
:3oops:
start a sleeper cell of americans ,do something, the stench is starting to drift into canada.
 
Last edited:

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Canuck said:
http://www.toxiclegacy.com
toxic legacies of Companies like Ford motor company on that site
and others

show that american polution agencies are a scam the people slush fund for
pocket change for the candidates

As long as you dont take to the streets HOw can freedom ring
:3oops:
start a sleeper cell of americans ,do something, the stench is starting to drift into canada.

Every post you make is virulent anti-American. You must be from Quebec.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Coronet Warning Ignored In 2001
By DEBORAH ALBERTO dalberto@tampatrib.com
Published: Jul 31, 2003




PLANT CITY - Two years ago, federal officials sent a letter to state environmental regulators, warning of potential health risks posed by a phosphate processor.
The company's name was a familiar one to the state agency: Coronet Industries.

Yet the state Department of Environmental Protection never shared the letter with residents. Nor was it forwarded to state or local health departments.

It took public outcry and a federally mandated public health assessment before state or county health officials became aware of the information sent by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

A state Health Department scientist found the letter while looking into reports of cancer rates among people who live near Coronet.

``The first time the EPA study came to my attention was when I reviewed [DEP] files,'' said Shaun Crawford, a scientist at the state Department of Health.

Mike Gonsalves, who oversees the Department of Environmental Protection's solid waste division, said the regulatory agency received a ``courtesy copy'' of the letter in June 2001 but was not required to pass that information on or act on it. He wouldn't elaborate on why the letter wasn't shared with residents or health departments.

Health officials are trying to determine whether pollution from the animal feed supplement manufacturer is to blame for health problems reported by residents in two communities near Coronet.

The nine- to 12-month study will examine cancer rates in the area and causes.

Arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, gross alpha radiation and fluoride were among the potentially harmful substances found in levels exceeding state and federal guidelines on Coronet property. The plant also discharges tons of dust and other airborne pollutants each year.

On Friday, county Environmental Protection Commission Executive Director Richard Garrity sent a letter asking Sheriff Cal Henderson and State Attorney Mark Ober to investigate claims by former Coronet employees that they were ordered to dump toxic waste and deceive government regulators.

Spokeswomen for Henderson and Ober said they either hadn't received the letter or hadn't had time to act.

Garrity attached a copy of a Tampa Tribune article published Friday that included interviews with three former Coronet employees, who said they were told to break environmental laws. He also asked Henderson and Ober to review a broadcast from Wednesday on WFLA, News Channel 8, on the subject.

Coronet has a long history of environmental violations.

The letter from the EPA was sent after a congressionally mandated study showed Coronet was among four facilities in an eight-state region that had greater potential than most industrial facilities to affect public health.

``There are two ways we will get involved in a public health assessment,'' said Beth Copeland of the state Health Department. ``One way is if environmental regulatory agencies ask us to be involved. The other way is when we are requested by the public.''

Copeland and Crawford are conducting a public health assessment to determine whether cancer-causing substances on Coronet's property or the plant's air emissions are affecting people's health.

They also are looking at other possible sources of pollution, including eight old landfills in the area, including one on property once owned by Coronet that's slated for development. Rezoning that would clear the way for construction of 2,600 homes at the Lakeside Station development proposed at U.S. 92 and Park Road, north of Coronet. That development is on hold pending the outcome of the health assessment.

The health assessment, commissioned by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, was generated by public concern, Copeland said. The study will include taking samples from private wells in the area, to see whether pollution has contaminated water supplies.

State health officials wouldn't comment on whether regulatory agencies should have notified them, but they indicated limited testing of areas around Coronet has not allowed them to accurately evaluate the scope of the community's health concerns.

The letter was forwarded from the EPA's office in Atlanta to Florida Department of Environmental Protection officials in Tallahassee in June 2001. It was received nine days later in the Tampa office.

Crawford would not have reviewed the files and discovered the letter if residents in neighborhoods near Coronet Industries had not requested help from federal health officials.

Coronet also knew about the study, EPA officials said.

County Environmental Protection Commission officials said they were not notified of the study until last week - after The Tampa Tribune asked questions of DEP officials.

``I never received it or heard anything about it until this week,'' said Sam Elrabi, an engineer who oversees the county agency's water management division. ``It is always a concern to hear things like that. I had no knowledge.''

State and county environmental officials on Monday vowed to work more closely together in the future.


Reporter Deborah Alberto can be reached at (813) 754-3765.


-Originally published on July 19, 2003.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
24,448
Reaction score
15,469
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Kandahar said:
But a pollution tax would CREATE that economic incentive without relying on regulations. If companies expect to make money, they always charge consumers more than the cost of production. But since they don't usually have to pay to clean up after themselves, the prices they charge don't TRULY reflect the cost of production. By charging the manufacturer or the consumer a "pollution tax," the economic incentive would exist for companies to pollute as little as possible without forcing excessive legal burdens on them.

Most environmental regulations function with market incentives. Failure to comply results in penalties which are essentially pollution taxes. The Super Fund was a pollution tax used to fund the clean up of hazardous sites. Congressional Republicans have refused to require polluting companies to continue to fund it and the fund has dried up as a result so now you and me get to foot the bill.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
www.toxiclegacy.com. I was able to access it, and I'm not the least bit surprised at the material on it.

Why?

Because most big businesses don't care about the trash they leave behind or the lives that they hurt. This has been happening for years, but the American voters, who outnumber the Gov't, just sit and watch the big businesses and the gov't put the hump to 'em.

I'm not saying to cause a revolution, just to apply more pressure on politicians to do their job and to put partisan politics aside.

your *****ing out
start a revolution
http://www.toxiclegacy.com
 
Top Bottom