RateItAll: The Opinion Network

This is a no brainer. Look, I'm not even an environmentalist in the tree-hugger sense, my background is the log it, mine it, pave it to the beach mentality.

But it's Law 101: If you mess it up, you pay to fix it, or you pay the fines. Only the doughheads in the global national governments don't get this.

Aren't they already being held accountable? Don't we have a department in the Federal Government specifically created to monitor, evaluate and enforce environmental protection laws?

Uh, I don't even understand why this is a question. For those who champion the power of the private sector, why should government be saddled with the job of cleaning up somebody else's mess. Of course, I also feel that since trucking companies cause 90 percent of the wear and tear on the roads, they should pay for 90 percent of the maintenance and repair. Doesn't work that way in this country though. We privatize the profit and socialize the cost.

. . .so who is supposed to be held accountable for the mess? My neighbor?

D'UH!! That's only fair, seeing as how THEY'RE the ones creating 95% of it! Lawn mowers and cars are problems (hydrogen fuel cells are coming, so be patient), but there's little chance of substituting chemicals now in use (never say never), and our waterways and landfills are straining at the seams as it is. Technology will come along and make pollution a less-pressing conundrum, but it'd be nice if we could stick around in some semblance of comfort until it happens.

Absolutely! If a company is knowingly and directly doing harm to the environment beyond the legal parameters allowed by law they should be accoutable to the community for damages incurred. No one is for a polluted community. However the larger question is to what the legal parameters should be at what costs. As they should, elected legislatures at the demand of the people insist upon legislation that fosters a proper balance between the community and business' interests. Eco-terrorists and radical environmentalists make the argument that all industrialization is wrong, that any use of wildlife areas by business is unjust and humans in general are the largest threat to the environment. This position simply fails to meet any standard of logic. The reality is the environment itself has no bias toward anything- it is us who has a bias toward the living conditions we create. Nature in all its wisdom burns down hundreds of thousands of acres of woodlands a year, leaving flat blackened ground in its wake. It is the hand of man that prevents wild fires by removing dry tinder and catalysts for wildfires to preserve an environment we find acceptable. I can site numerous instances where man through our reasoned abilities has interjected into nature a status quo absent in nature itself. Animals themselves kill capriciously for numerous reasons. Man seeking just manners of bring food for process has created procedures it deems more humane for the process. In the past businesses in their zeal to create greater profits in the ephemeral have pursued them with negligable disregard for the communities themselves. Properly the people organized and lobbied their legislatures to create parameters that took both the business interest- which is a human interest- into account and the enviornmental interest- which is also our interest into account. The staunch libertarian advocates who argue the market will determine the proper ends with regard to the environment fail to meet the necessary complexities of the issue- they simply won't. And those who seemingly would shut down business and impose some anti-progressive preservation of nature fail to understand businesses can meet the requirements of community standards and in most cases do a service to the enviroment itself. The sagacious hand of man can and has continually created a less polluted community while advancing business and medical science for the last 30 years. This has, and will continue to be acheived through the democratic process, which in the end serves all of us for the better.

Well of course. You can't blame trees for pollution. If industry violates federal rules, they must be held accountable for their actions.

Of course, if they cause the pollution then they should be held responsible. Industry does not have to pollute the way they are today. I have found that a lot the pollutants are released simply because companies do not maintain their equipment properly (not cleaning air scrubbers and other filtering devices). Being a good neighbor environmentally should be important to industry and should be considered financially as a cost of doing business.

Yes.They should not only be held accountable they should be heavily fined for any violation.I do not accept being poisoned by corporations any more than I accept terrorism.

A different approach is needed instead of just laws and punishment. I recall in 1968 when Sen Edmund Muskie proposed a bill for automotive pollution standards the industry said that they did not yet have the technology to meet the standards without significant increase in automobile prices. His reply was I'm not telling you how to do it, I'm just telling you to do it. It is that kind of arrogant thinking that has pitted industry against the environment instead of all of us working for the good of everyone concerned. The people who run industrial companies breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else. First, let's come to terms with the fact that even though we still have a problem with industrial pollution, the United States is the world leader in clean factories and the science of repair to damaged lands and water. Three times in the last century the Cuyahoga River in Ohio actually caught fire from pollutants in the water.(1936, 1952, 1969) While the problem has not been totally resolved, the ducks and herons have returned to its banks. We are the leaders in anti pollution technology and clean up, but we need everyone's cooperation for maximum effectiveness and threatening companies with fines or closure does little to unite industry with environmental protection and has made it profitable for those who would illegally dispose of waste. The Kyoto agreement, while strong on good intentions, falls short on effectiveness. None of the requirements would have to be observed by developing countries, such as China. It is neither fair nor practical to place the majority of the burden on the United States yet at the same time hold foreign polluters unaccountable. While there may not be any single answer, I believe that a two tier program would be a good place to start. First, current law offers companies financial incentives for pollution control equipment. In my view, that by itself is not the right approach. The idea is not to pollute in the first place instead of placing band aids on smokestacks. Along with incentives for pollution control equipment which should continue, incentives should also be granted for companies that use cleaner methods and machinery that reduces the amount of pollutants initially produced. Second, many countries (predominantly Communist) are using antiquated equipment that must be replaced if there is going to be a serious effort to reduce emissions. Some of these nations are using coal fired plants that are close to 100 years old and pollute so badly that the people in nearby villages cannot hang their laundry outside to dry. Programs should be developed by all industrialized nations (read that as not only the US) to assist these countries in modernizing their factories. As long as pollution continues to be a political football peppered with junk science and irrational extremists, it is going to remain a game of catch me if you can with industry adhering to the letter of the law simply to avoid paying fines instead of leading the way. Let us hold all polluters responsible wherever they are, make it financially attractive for industry to manufacture using cutting edge technology, replace obsolete facilities with newer, cleaner plants, and I believe we would see significant improvements world wide.

If you messed it up, you clean it up. M.O. Ther

Yes, the industrial community should be held accountable for its share of pollution, and there should be much more awareness among the populace at large as to its (our) part in preventing pollution, or at least, at trying to limit it. Americans (and probably Canadians) generate so much waste it is apalling. We overpackage things, drive too many gas guzzlers, use too many polluting gadgets (like lawn mower and chain saws), chop down too many trees when building new housing communities, etc. (and I'm as much a part of the problem as others, sad to say). We literally need to clean up our act for the health of our planet.

Obviously if they are the ones creating it then they should. They should also have to fund those little puffer thingys that people who suffer from athesma need. I think that it is nescessary for the people of industrial nations to recognize where pollution comes from inorder to help make a difference. If this happens then people will also be able to make more environmentally friendly choices because the industries will be forced to become more efficient and create more efficient products.

Definitely if you make the trash you should clean it up.

The 'Industrial Community' IS held accountable. EPA,OSHA, Greenpeace and so on. Our existence demands that we polute. Spooky Huh? We are a polluting kind of species. First though what kind of pollution are we talking about. Let's see air, water. . .these are the big ones. Then there's noise, light and so on. Polution control is buried into the cost of everything we buy that's made in the U.S. Remember eventhough we are the evil polluter of the world, many other countries have no pollution standards at all. Look at China.It's a worldwide problem, its massive and until civilized and yes I mean civilized nations such as ours demand the world comply with OUR standards it will only get worse. Now shut your car off and click your computer off because your polluting.

Polluters should be held accountable for pollution. This isn't a terribly complex concept. The evidence of damage from industrial pollution is massive, and the problem continues to grow. Acid rain from, for example, coal-fired power plants in the Ohio Valley has already wiped out entire species in the northeast by lowering the pH in lakes to toxic levels, and entire forests at high elevations in the Appalachians have lost their crowns from the same problem. It's OBVIOUS. Particularly galling is that the technology for cleaning plant emissions is easily available, is getting better all the time, and could be installed quickly, but neither the energy companies nor the administration in Washington is willing to cut into short-term profits to make the change.

We all should be held accountable! There is no one group or organization to blame for pollution.

Pollution isn't damaging the Earth in the way environmentalist wackos say it is. This is almost a non-issue. People need to ficus mroe on themselves and fix their own personal problems and wrongdoings, and take responsibility for their own personal actions.

It is funny how we all want to drive big cars, have a nice warm house in the winter, cool one in the summer. We fill our houses with plastic disposable crap, spray them down with lysol, bleach, amonia. We wash our clothes in phosphates, fertilize our lawns with explosives. Kill all that bothers us with systemic pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. Packaging... we gobble it up, now water has to come wrapped in plastic. Carcinogens coming out of our every pore. They make this stuff for you, you buy it they make it. You want it cheaper, faster, cleaner. Baaaa. Yes they should be held accountable, as should we.

Yup. Because corporations only care about short-term and selfish goals: increase stock dividends and cut costs. They aren't concerned about the general well-being of this country or its people and they must be accountable for their actions.

This depends on your definition of accountable and pollution. Individuals own property. If I can prove that one of my neighbors has been dumping trash on my property, then it IS actionable and can be decided in a court of law. But how to prove something like air pollution? Who owns the air? If I could prove that Factory X down the street is spewing out chemicals that have been proven to have done damage TO ME, then I can sue them. But these potential hazard lawsuits and laws being passed... I disagree with them. Let's not waste time on potential this and possible that; let's stick to the facts and handle cases as they occur, not as they might occur.