I think the EPA issue boils down to the relative value one
places on profit vs clean air-water-soil. Unregulated, the evidence is clear
that people opt for profit. If their discharge fouls the AWS but they're
making more profit, they have chosen profit.
This is in ethics "the
tragedy of the commons." The Boy Scout principle of leave your
campsite cleaner than you found it is trumped by profit maximization. The
thing is we all need clean AWS to survive. If a farmers fertilized field
grows more and the runoff kills the downstream flora and fauna, and Chesapeake fisherman
go bankrupt, much less people who enjoy kayaking, where does one draw the line?
I'm all for less government right up to the point that selfish motives
harm the "commons", the lives of the rest of us. If everyone cared
about what happened downstream, this would be a non-issue. If dentists dumped
mercury into the water table, who would stop them? If people found it too
bothersome to take used motor oil to a recycling center and just dumped it on
the ground, what about my well water? The country's littered with toxic
plant sites, leaking landfills, etc. Who is managing that? Does Spirit
Aerospace "care" about runoff from manufacturing fuselages? I'm
sure there are some stupid regulations out there.
I'm also convinced that a) we
all need clean AWS and b) left alone, business people care more about profit
than clean AWS. The EPA's creation was a reaction to that history just like
labor unions were a reaction to abuse of employees. Finding the right balance
is a challenge, but no regulation has already proven disastrous for the rest of
humanity. Companies can still be profitable if somewhat less so by being
environmentally responsible. “Max profit” vs “sustainable profit.” Take a walk in Beijing as I have and be afraid to breathe the air. Drink from a stream
down river from a plant? If you pee in the creek upstream from my
drinking water, I’m not happy.
No comments:
Post a Comment