Question about stream polluters and lawsuits

[Catskill Mountain Man]

Hey guys.

I have an interesting question and anyone with knowledge of environmental law is urged to join this discussion...Ok, where to start..?

Back before major environmental laws were passed in this country companies were allowed to dump waste into our streams and rivers, and they did so relentlessly. (Example; GE and the Hudson river.)

Now that we know better and realize that these streams and rivers are horribly polluted; we seek to clean them and restore them.

But who pays? Understandably lawsuits were/are filed and we held/hold these companies responsible to clean up the mess.

But why? They didn't know what they were doing. WE as a nation, and even the whole planet, didn't know what we were doing and what harm we were causing. Remember companies are people, just like you and me.

I'm not advocating ANYTHING here. I'm just curious as to why we now force these major companies to dole out millions or billions of dollars to fix something that no one knew was broken. Not the judge/s, not the jury, not the workers, nobody.

Anyone have any insight?

The question seems trivial but I'd like to hear peoples opinions or understandings

 

[flyI4]

One word- Insurance. Pretty much every company, especially larger scale companies like the ones you elude to are heavily insured with general liability insurance- aka an insurance company that will pay both your Legal Fees and the cost of any judgment entered against you in the instance you are found liable in the suit. The companies view these insurance premiums as a cost of doing business and will write them off as such. As to your second more broad policy-based question of who should clean up these messes- thats just your basic corporate social responsibility argument right there. We've basically acknowledged at this point that corporations have more control than individuals in the world we live in today and that it will take the cooperation of these companies to cure just about any major societal problem you can list- including environmental issues. Its gained traction too- companies try to support or at least develop an image that is consistent with the view points of their customers' demographic. Just look at companies like trader joes, apple, chipotle, and starbucks to name a few. They are very in touch with their customers and what their beliefs generally are, and they try to identify with them. So basically, helping the environment and paying some money forward toward an environmental cause can generate returns and a mutual gain for both interest groups and corporations alike.

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

One word- Insurance. Pretty much every company, especially larger scale companies like the ones you elude to are heavily insured with general liability insurance- aka an insurance company that will pay both your Legal Fees and the cost of any judgment entered against you in the instance you are found liable in the suit. The companies view these insurance premiums as a cost of doing business and will write them off as such. As to your second more broad policy-based question of who should clean up these messes- thats just your basic corporate social responsibility argument right there. We've basically acknowledged at this point that corporations have more control than individuals in the world we live in today and that it will take the cooperation of these companies to cure just about any major societal problem you can list- including environmental issues. Its gained traction too- companies try to support or at least develop an image that is consistent with the view points of their customers' demographic. Just look at companies like trader joes, apple, chipotle, and starbucks to name a few. They are very in touch with their customers and what their beliefs generally are, and they try to identify with them. So basically, helping the environment and paying some money forward toward an environmental cause can generate returns and a mutual gain for both interest groups and corporations alike.

Wow that was the exact answer I was looking for, thanks.

I didnt know insurance companies came into the picture.. jesus.... and we wonder why we pay so much to them.

If they have to foot the bill to things like that,one could only imagine what else they'll need to pay indefinitely

The world is such a complicated place. All understanding helps to unravel it

Thanks again

 

[lightenup]

Wow that was the exact answer I was looking for, thanks.

I didnt know insurance companies came into the picture.. jesus.... and we wonder why we pay so much to them.

If they have to foot the bill to things like that,one could only imagine what else they'll need to pay indefinitely

The world is such a complicated place. All understanding helps to unravel it

Thanks again

..........I have no words............

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

..........I have no words............

What?

Was a comma in the wrong place or something?

 

[lightenup]

What?

Was a comma in the wrong place or something?

No...I didn't look at punctuation, just content.
I thought you had a better grasp on how the world works....my bad....Fly14 explained that very well, you are correct.

 

[flyI4]

No...I didn't look at punctuation, just content.
I thought you had a better grasp on how the world works....my bad....Fly14 explained that very well, you are correct.

Its scary how many people dont-- CMM is still fairly young and maybe he will learn. However, all you need to do to see how many people in this country don't grasp policy concepts if you will is look at the Editorials on CNN's website. So many wanna be bloggers arguing from the heart, but with such a nieve ,non-practical, utopian type belief of how the world works.

 

[lightenup]

Its scary how many people dont-- CMM is still fairly young and maybe he will learn. However, all you need to do to see how many people in this country don't grasp policy concepts if you will is look at the Editorials on CNN's website. So many wanna be bloggers arguing from the heart, but with such a nieve ,non-practical, utopian type belief of how the world works.

That is also a good point, I forgot for a second how ignant most people are....

are you trying to get some mostest smartestest votes?

 

[golden beetle]

How is the shoulder, CMM?

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

How is the shoulder, CMM?

Much better. A shot of anti inflammatory steroids cleared it right up.

 

[Joe D]

But, not all commercial general liability policies have pollution coverage. There is a "pollution exclusion" written into them. Then there comes the matter of whether something was sudden and accidental. Add to that whether the policy was written after 1986 or 1973. But most courts have ruled that the pollution exclusion doesn't apply to third party losses when the government forces a clean up or site monitoring, just to first party losses.

Example, my underground storage tank leaks and contaminates your property. I pay for the repair, removal, clean up of my property. My insurance pays for the damage I caused to you.

In the end we all pay. The insurance premium is overhead. Overhead gets calculated into the cost of goods & services.

 

[Thursthouse]

I didnt know insurance companies came into the picture.. jesus.... and we wonder why we pay so much to them.

Lord's name in vain from such a religious person..

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Also, don't believe for a moment that companies didn't know that they were polluting prior to the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. It's just that they may not have realized the extent to which it would eventually cost them later on.

 

[FIN-ITE 34]

Also, don't believe for a moment that companies didn't know that they were polluting prior to the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. It's just that they may not have realized the extent to which it would eventually cost them later on.

I'm with Rusty on this one. Anyone who believes that those corporations didn't know what they were doing is blinded by naiveté. The reason why they did it was because it was the cheapest way out and there were no regulations to force them to go the right and expensive way to dispose of the waste. There was another post about not needing regulations because corporations would do the right thing in the end. Only if there is a big stick held over their heads. Can you say Love Canal?

Joe D, you talk like you know something about insurance

 

[Pete]

It's not about insurance. A company (or individual) who has too many claims, soon finds itself uninsurable, or paying prohibitive premiums.

It's about lawyers. They've managed to establish that if something causes harm, it must be somebody's fault, and that somebody had to pay to make it right, whether or not they knew their actions would have a bad effect.

That's why there are so many "slip fall" lawyers, and so many "No Trespassing" signs....

In the case of pollution:
It could be argued that pollution harms everyone.
Who should pay to correct the situation?
Everyone (The taxpayers) ?
The Polluter?

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

Lord's name in vain from such a religious person..

I believe I used the correct context

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

It's not about insurance. A company (or individual) who has too many claims, soon finds itself uninsurable, or paying prohibitive premiums.

It's about lawyers. They've managed to establish that if something causes harm, it must be somebody's fault, and that somebody had to pay to make it right, whether or not they knew their actions would have a bad effect.

That's why there are so many "slip fall" lawyers, and so many "No Trespassing" signs....

In the case of pollution:
It could be argued that pollution harms everyone.
Who should pay to correct the situation?
Everyone (The taxpayers) ?
The Polluter?

I know there's a post going around about the smartest poster on neff. Pete, I've always appreciated the wisdom you bring to the table. Of subjects like this or the Ramapo.

 

[JeffK]

Life is complicated. I don't think it is any one party's problem, but a system built up to blame somebody and pass the buck. Often everybody pays - that is what happens to Super Fund sites where the risk to human health is great and the resources to fix the issue are not there. Then your Federal tax dollars are put to work. Often the companies that polluted do not exist any more. If they do why shouldn't they pay, at least something. The company profited by their behavior. Why shouldn't it cost them?

 

[Catskill Mountain Man]

Life is complicated. I don't think it is any one party's problem, but a system built up to blame somebody and pass the buck. Often everybody pays - that is what happens to Super Fund sites where the risk to human health is great and the resources to fix the issue are not there. Then your Federal tax dollars are put to work. Often the companies that polluted do not exist any more. If they do why shouldn't they pay, at least something. The company profited by their behavior. Why shouldn't it cost them?

Because anyone could have done it. We didnt know

 

[Trout Nazi]

Because anyone could have done it. We didnt know

You youngsters and your lack of accountability, claiming ignorance as an excuse. Somebody DID do it, therefore they need to bear the consequences of their actions.

 

[FIN-ITE 34]

Because anyone could have done it. We didn't know

Here is a little ditty you should read in its entirety.
Corporate Giant Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution

Take special note of the time line and quotes by Monsanto executives regarding what they knew and how they were going to handle it.

I especially liked the statement about beholding to the stockholders and it's just capitalism. I think anybody should be able to make a buck, but when does capitalism trump life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[flyI4]

It's not about insurance. A company (or individual) who has too many claims, soon finds itself uninsurable, or paying prohibitive premiums.

It's about lawyers. They've managed to establish that if something causes harm, it must be somebody's fault, and that somebody had to pay to make it right, whether or not they knew their actions would have a bad effect.

That's why there are so many "slip fall" lawyers, and so many "No Trespassing" signs....

In the case of pollution:
It could be argued that pollution harms everyone.
Who should pay to correct the situation?
Everyone (The taxpayers) ?
The Polluter?

Pete,

Why should a business have to "know their actions would have a bad effect" aka "intent" to be held liable? A company exists for one reason, to make profit. If in the course of making profit, their actions have a major negative impact on people or the environment, why should they not be held responsible for that harm caused or at least be forced to give back some of those profits they made to help repair the harm they caused? Everyone in business needs to be held responsible for the forces they create, and when they cause harm they need to remedy that harm for those that are impacted. To say otherwise would allow companies to throw up their hands in ignorance every time something bad happens and pretend it was an unknown disaster. Should BP being able to say "we didn't know this was going to happen, we tried to prevent the entire gulf from being poisoned" and walk away with all the profits they made from the site before it was totally destroyed? When you enter a business (and a profitable one in BP's case) that involves interaction with dangerous chemicals and the environment, you assume the risk of being held responsible for any harm your actions cause. It then becomes the job of the company to assess whether that is an insurable risk, and whether the additional non-insurable risk left to the company financially justifies taking on the business endeavor. Whats wrong with that?

 

[Pete]

Pete,

Why should a business have to "know their actions would have a bad effect" aka "intent" to be held liable? A company exists for one reason, to make profit. If in the course of making profit, their actions have a major negative impact on people or the environment, why should they not be held responsible for that harm caused or at least be forced to give back some of those profits they made to help repair the harm they caused? Everyone in business needs to be held responsible for the forces they create, and when they cause harm they need to remedy that harm for those that are impacted. To say otherwise would allow companies to throw up their hands in ignorance every time something bad happens and pretend it was an unknown disaster. Should BP being able to say "we didn't know this was going to happen, we tried to prevent the entire gulf from being poisoned" and walk away with all the profits they made from the site before it was totally destroyed? When you enter a business (and a profitable one in BP's case) that involves interaction with dangerous chemicals and the environment, you assume the risk of being held responsible for any harm your actions cause. It then becomes the job of the company to assess whether that is an insurable risk, and whether the additional non-insurable risk left to the company financially justifies taking on the business endeavor. Whats wrong with that?

You read too much into my post...
I avoided sermonizing about good or bad.. it's just the way things are.

According to the Gospel of St. Dennis of Carbomb....
There is no God.
Therefore there is no "higher law", and the concepts of good, evil, right, and wrong, are nonexistent except as a matter of opinion. We have no obligations except those the "stronger" impose upon us.

Depending on the issue, the one with the most guns, or the better lawyer, gets to decide what's "right".

 

[Oliver10]

Most of you are dumb as dirt.

 

[Matt Grobert]

This stuff is happening in China right now, only the manufacturer's don't have to hide it, because the government looks the other way....or owns part of or all of the manufacturing companies. Some days the smog is so thick in some regions you can't see across the street and breathing is difficult. The government tries to counter this by putting up huge LCD displays in town squares and busy intersections with a bright sun and blue sky, or a sunrise on them.........

 

[Trout Nazi]

This stuff is happening in China right now, only the manufacturer's don't have to hide it, because the government looks the other way....or owns part of or all of the manufacturing companies. Some days the smog is so thick in some regions you can't see across the street and breathing is difficult. The government tries to counter this by putting up huge LCD displays in town squares and busy intersections with a bright sun and blue sky, or a sunrise on them.........

Actually, the smog is so bad over India and China you can see it from space in the summer. A few years ago it looked like the whole thing was starting to move west, the EU was freaking out that it was going to reach Europe. But lets keep manufacturing everything over there. Out of site, out of mind till it starts moving this way.

 

[CTobias]

Remember companies are people, just like you and me.

Uhh...No they are not people. They are run by people, but in no way shape or form are they people.


The people who caused the pollution pay for it. GE is a very evil and corrupt company. I worked on a site in a New England state that rhymes with Vermont, where tons of PCBs had lbeen dumped out back and eventually found their way into the stream next to the old factory. This factory made fire proof paint and bought used transformer oil (i think that's what it was) from GE to put in their paint to make it fire resistent. The company went out of business and GE was left to foot the bill because they knew what they were doing and they needed to be held accountable. Anyways, there was a rope swing on the creek and I asked why the community hadn't been made aware of the amount of contaminents that were still in the water. I was basically told to be quiet and not mention the word contamination while we were in public. Apparently it was a touchy subject in the community.

Place was loaded with this crap, even twenty years later, and five years or so after it had been capped.

 

[golden beetle]

You read too much into my post...
I avoided sermonizing about good or bad.. it's just the way things are.

According to the Gospel of St. Dennis of Carbomb....
There is no God.
Therefore there is no "higher law", and the concepts of good, evil, right, and wrong, are nonexistent except as a matter of opinion. We have no obligations except those the "stronger" impose upon us.

Depending on the issue, the one with the most guns, or the better lawyer, gets to decide what's "right".

Does the higher law of God ever change, to accommodate for progress in human understanding, science and technology?

Just wondering. It seems that the higher law you speak of is already perfect.

It wouldn't evolve, would it?

Now, I don't think you are arguing that advances in science and technology are bad, are you?

So it seems that men can do good things without God, such as science and progress in knowledge.

Perhaps if God's law is already perfect, and need not change with the times and pace that other changes are occurring, that God's law has nothing to do with God at all.

 

[Pete]

Does the higher law of God ever change, to accommodate for progress in human understanding, science and technology?

Just wondering. It seems that the higher law you speak of is already perfect.

It wouldn't evolve, would it?

Now, I don't think you are arguing that advances in science and technology are bad, are you?

So it seems that men can do good things without God, such as science and progress in knowledge.

Perhaps if God's law is already perfect, and need not change with the times and pace that other changes are occurring, that God's law has nothing to do with God at all.

What higher law?
Define the terms "good" and "bad", in the context you're using them.

 

[golden beetle]

What higher law?
Define the terms "good" and "bad", in the context you're using them.

I am confused too.

I see people as making constant progress.

Things totally unrelated to God seem to get better all the time.

Science and technology? Lots of progress.

Advances in medical technology are good.

Why does morality need God any more than science and technology to progress?