George_Washington
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Who do you guys think pollutes the enviroment more? Private companies and people or the government?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
SouthernDemocrat said:Ok, but if you do that, would poor states not just steal industry away from rich states by having little or no environmental oversight?
George_Washington said:Hmmm...good point. I don't know, do you think they would?
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.
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
are you referring to psychological polution or physical? the answers may varyGeorge_Washington said:Who do you guys think pollutes the enviroment more? Private companies and people or the government?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Canuck said: