A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple? I wish fines were based on the gravity of the potential maximum risk to the environment over the longterm multiplied by a factor of the company's wealth so that a company as large as Apple wouldn't even consider trying to get away with harming the environment.
Did you just say that some people should be treated differently under the law versus others? Equal treatment in the eyes of the law is a founding principal of American justice.
1) Scenario 1: A judge has two separate cases on his docket. Each case is for the exact same crime in every possible way. One defendant has no money, assets, or really any means to speak but has all his family locally of so the judge sets bail at $10k. The other, a millionaire with a private jet and vast international connections and all his family happens to reside in a non-extradition country. Should the judge also set bail at $10k even though he's considerably more likely a flight risk due to the aforementioned data?
Scenario 2: Your son and daughter both get a failing grade in history. Your policy is to remove something they enjoy. Also known as negative punishment (not to be confused with negative reinforcement—see link below). Your son loves to play with his Nintendo Switch and your daughter loves to talk on the phone with her friends on weeknights so you confiscate your son's Switch until his grades are back up and your don't let your daughter talk on the phone or hang out with her friends on weeknights until her grades are back up. The same catalyst but with different actions because reversing the punishments for the roles would have no impact.
2) Yes! Companies should be treated differently than individuals under the law. While you may believe that Samsung's penalty for stealing Apple's IP for nearly a decade is fair, I don't think for a second that it does a damn thing to stop Samsung (or othersfrom continuing to steal) l IP when they know that the financial punishment will never fit the crime under the current law. Personally, I find the "we can afford to be unethical" stance to be deplorable, and frankly I'm surprised that you would take that position in favor of Samsung or doing reputable damage to the environment and its people.
3) No, equal treatment has never been a founding principle of the American justice system. if it was the demographics of those incarcerated would look a lot different.
Bottom line: Punishments should fit the crime in order to deter future crime (which includes rehabilitation, if applicable).
A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple?
Yep, completely agree. $40K to a (near) Trillion
Dollar company is not something that would make it think twice, so
you'd have to question whether it is an effective deterrent (and let's
face it, the purpose of a fine is to try and deter you from
re-offending). Now compare that to a $40K fine for a $500K company.
That smaller company would take notice.
I'm a strong supporter of % based fines rather than fixed rate, so they are more meaningful as a deterrent.
Hmm, so if I accidentally kill someone while driving compared to someone who isn’t a multimillionaire, according to your views I should be held to higher account, even if the exact same circumstances prevailed?
Or or if Someone illegally parks a Ferrari, and the next day, in the exact same spot, someone else illegally parks a Dodge Challenger, the Ferrari owner should be fined more for the infraction?
A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple?
Yep, completely agree. $40K to a (near) Trillion
Dollar company is not something that would make it think twice, so
you'd have to question whether it is an effective deterrent (and let's
face it, the purpose of a fine is to try and deter you from
re-offending). Now compare that to a $40K fine for a $500K company.
That smaller company would take notice.
I'm a strong supporter of % based fines rather than fixed rate, so they are more meaningful as a deterrent.
Should Macy's means test your income level before telling you the price of a sweater?
And why would a small violation in one state have a fine based on the entire net worth of a one of the largest corporations in the world.
Equality is a good idea. Try it, you'll like it.
The EU uses fines based on worldwide revenues as a proper "cure" for EU specific violations of competition rules. I've always questioned that basis myself but apparently it's all legally supported.
Legally supported simply means some government decided to make it law. Slavery was once legally supported. Is that your argument for the practice?
On a separate note...I can't wait for people to take this story and run with it on how Apple doesn't really care about the environment as much as they say they do.
A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple? I wish fines were based on the gravity of the potential maximum risk to the environment over the longterm multiplied by by a factor of the company's wealth so that a company like Apple wouldn't even either being too lazy to care about the risk or trying to get away with it.
And there you go
How does that prove that Apple doesn't care about the environment? There are many reasons why a company or its employees made mistakes. My point is that when a mistake is made—and mistakes will be made—that a company is accountable in a way that will be too cost prohibitive for them to want to repeat that mistake again, which in turn forces a company to apply more resources into internal audits and checks so that they can keep these issues from happening before they become a problem. IOW, better proactive measures that help the environment.
I can cite many famous cases in which companies took shortcuts because the projected cost of being caught and fined was much less than doing the right thing up front. Of all the major corporations out there Apple is probably the least likely to act maliciously, but that doesn't mean that shouldn't be held to the same standard that I'm proposing.
If we use the 7 year-long Apple v Samsung case as an example we see that Samsung's ultimate penalty for stealing Apple's IP means there's no reason that they'll risk doing it again because they've made countless billions slavishly stealing from Apple (but I ultimately don't care about such cases since it's giants fighting giants). What I do care about are the longterm effects on the health of the populace. If we don't make this financially problematic—the only way these company can be hurt—then there's no reason for companies not to take the risk. Need an example: Imagine if you were only fined 10¢ for every MPH you were driving over the speed limit and there were no points to be added to your license if you were caught? Do you think that more people would be speeding?
You neglect to address another outcome; that companies might not risk innovation. There have been many hazardous chemicals used in the electronics industry, for example. Advances allow companies to replace these with less hazardous, and eventually safe, chemicals and substances. But what company would have even invented the integrated circuit, or solder, or chemical circuit board etching, or any of numerous other processes used to build the modern electronic industry had they been liable to extremes for mishaps in the handling of hazardous materials. Safety procedures are put in place, or should be, to safeguard against mishaps, and these should meet standards regulated by government. That is the bar companies should be tasked with meeting; not have some sword hovering over their necks should something unforeseen take place. The application of treble damages for intentional, deliberate acts exists to cover your issues, and perhaps that should be raised to 4x or 10x. But to scale according to the size of the entity involved is to stop innovation by those with too much wealth to risk. You’d have only the underfunded garage startups producing any innovation, with anyone who has worked for thirty or forty years to build a large and successful business too shy to risk it all on the cutting edge. Meanwhile, your laws would not be adopted by China, and there is where the future of innovation and risk would find its new home.
On a separate note...I can't wait for people to take this story and run with it on how Apple doesn't really care about the environment as much as they say they do.
A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple? I wish fines were based on the gravity of the potential maximum risk to the environment over the longterm multiplied by by a factor of the company's wealth so that a company like Apple wouldn't even either being too lazy to care about the risk or trying to get away with it.
And there you go
How does that prove that Apple doesn't care about the environment? There are many reasons why a company or its employees made mistakes. My point is that when a mistake is made—and mistakes will be made—that a company is accountable in a way that will be too cost prohibitive for them to want to repeat that mistake again, which in turn forces a company to apply more resources into internal audits and checks so that they can keep these issues from happening before they become a problem. IOW, better proactive measures that help the environment.
I can cite many famous cases in which companies took shortcuts because the projected cost of being caught and fined was much less than doing the right thing up front. Of all the major corporations out there Apple is probably the least likely to act maliciously, but that doesn't mean that shouldn't be held to the same standard that I'm proposing.
If we use the 7 year-long Apple v Samsung case as an example we see that Samsung's ultimate penalty for stealing Apple's IP means there's no reason that they'll risk doing it again because they've made countless billions slavishly stealing from Apple (but I ultimately don't care about such cases since it's giants fighting giants). What I do care about are the longterm effects on the health of the populace. If we don't make this financially problematic—the only way these company can be hurt—then there's no reason for companies not to take the risk. Need an example: Imagine if you were only fined 10¢ for every MPH you were driving over the speed limit and there were no points to be added to your license if you were caught? Do you think that more people would be speeding?
You neglect to address another outcome; that companies might not risk innovation.
Humans have a long long history of unethical practices in order to bypass regulatory boards and safety protocols.
But none of your arguments make any sense when when discussing a the handling and disposal of hazardous materials and their effects on the environment. (See previous Wikipedia link on previous page)
I have thought for many years that corporate fines (for any wrongdoing) should simply be a percentage of their annual revenue. If any company had to pay say 1% of their revenue for every fine levied, there would quickly be a zero tolerance for infractions. Fair and equal amount of pain to every company regardless of size.
Should Macy's means test your income level before telling you the price of a sweater? And why would a small violation in one state have a fine based on the entire net worth of a one of the largest corporations in the world. Equality is a good idea. Try it, you'll like it.
Well now that depends on what they do with that information.
If Macy's wanted to discourage me from going back to their store, then increasing the price of the sweater from 5% of my monthly pay to 20% of my pay would certainly make me think twice about going back there.
Much in the same way as increasing Apple's fine from 0.004% of their revenue to 0.5% might make them think more about the (business) risks associated with incorrect hazardous material handling.
The difficulty in fines is always what the unintended consequences are as opposed to the desired results.
Duke Energy spilled coal ash into the Dan River in NC. They were fined and made to clean it up, but the cost of cleanup was steep, and Duke Energy decided they were able to do "cost recovery" by increasing everyone's bill, to the tune of 183 Million.
That is, if you want something to be punitive, what do you do in order to prevent it from just being a fee passed on to the consumer? With Duke Energy, the utilities commission has to approve rate increases... which were approved.
Is Duke energy operating in a truly free market then? It sounds like maybe they aren't if price increases such as these don't translate into customers going to competitors (which would then be the effective penalty for them).
When companies are protected from market forces (and penalties!) in this manner then the only way to tackle it is politically.
It's amazing how fast things can change when politicians start to lose votes.
A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple? I wish fines were based on the gravity of the potential maximum risk to the environment over the longterm multiplied by a factor of the company's wealth so that a company as large as Apple wouldn't even consider trying to get away with harming the environment.
Did you just say that some people should be treated differently under the law versus others? Equal treatment in the eyes of the law is a founding principal of American justice.
I think the point being made is that a fixed amount fine that has little financial impact to a large company is not equal treatment when compared to one where that same amount has a substantial impact.
Is this one of their older facilities where they were experimenting with different alternative energies like biogas and fuel cells? Because isn't solar the winner in the alt. energy race and isn't that what they use in newer facilities?
Hmm, so if I accidentally kill someone while driving compared to someone who isn’t a multimillionaire, according to your views I should be held to higher account, even if the exact same circumstances prevailed?
Or or if Someone illegally parks a Ferrari, and the next day, in the exact same spot, someone else illegally parks a Dodge Challenger, the Ferrari owner should be fined more for the infraction?
Goodness no. Both you & the non-millionaire would be in jail & denied freedom until your time was served. As your freedom is not based on the amount you earn that I think that would be an equal deterrent. ie. you are both losing 100% of your freedom.
But if the Ferarri owner is paying a fine that is just loose change to him, then he may even decide it makes more financial sense to park there everyday as opposed to time lost trying to find a free spot in that congested area. If the Dodge owner copped the same fine and couldn't cover all of his mortgage payment that month as a result he probably would think twice before doing it again. They are unequal deterrent effects.
Of course if the Ferrari owner just leases the car for show and actually isn't a millionaire at all (he's just faking it ) then sure, paying the same fine as the Dodge owner would have an equal deterrent effect.
A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple?
Yep, completely agree. $40K to a (near) Trillion
Dollar company is not something that would make it think twice, so
you'd have to question whether it is an effective deterrent (and let's
face it, the purpose of a fine is to try and deter you from
re-offending). Now compare that to a $40K fine for a $500K company.
That smaller company would take notice.
I'm a strong supporter of % based fines rather than fixed rate, so they are more meaningful as a deterrent.
Should Macy's means test your income level before telling you the price of a sweater?
And why would a small violation in one state have a fine based on the entire net worth of a one of the largest corporations in the world.
Equality is a good idea. Try it, you'll like it.
The EU uses fines based on worldwide revenues as a proper "cure" for EU specific violations of competition rules. I've always questioned that basis myself but apparently it's all legally supported.
It was that it hauling the CEOs in, tying them up and giving them a whipping ;-)
As a deterrent, the percentage system seems to have been effective and I believe it was only implemented in the first place as the fixed system wasn't having the desired effect on companies that probably saw themselves as above the law as a result of their financial clout.
The difficulty in fines is always what the unintended consequences are as opposed to the desired results.
Duke Energy spilled coal ash into the Dan River in NC. They were fined and made to clean it up, but the cost of cleanup was steep, and Duke Energy decided they were able to do "cost recovery" by increasing everyone's bill, to the tune of 183 Million.
That is, if you want something to be punitive, what do you do in order to prevent it from just being a fee passed on to the consumer? With Duke Energy, the utilities commission has to approve rate increases... which were approved.
Is Duke energy operating in a truly free market then? It sounds like maybe they aren't if price increases such as these don't translate into customers going to competitors (which would then be the effective penalty for them).
When companies are protected from market forces (and penalties!) in this manner then the only way to tackle it is politically.
It's amazing how fast things can change when politicians start to lose votes.
That's because utilities are guaranteed to make a profit, the commission had no choice but to approve the increase. The fine comes out of the profits, all other costs get rolled up under operating expenses this allowed to be past along. Just another cost of regulations.
In the end consumers always pay for all the good and bad, even the good intents of people thinking they are doing good things with bad outcomes. Like hey use a fuel cell verses fossil fuels but they forgot it has a bad byproduct of benzene, oops they missed that one.
Companies like Apple actively participate and adhere to quality, safety, and environmental standards. In this specific case the ISO 14000 series standards are applicable. One common theme that you will find in all of the ISO standards is the notion of Continuous Improvement. Apple is breaking new ground and ramping up facilities and processes that are new to the company and often new to the industry. It’s also doing these things at unprecedented scale. Anything new and challenging has a learning curve for both the company, operators, and for regulatory agencies. As long as Apple continues to learn, adapt, and improve based on the feedback that they receive internally and externally, with some lessons resulting in fines, then they are doing the right thing. Everyone makes mistakes, but how you react to and learn from your mistakes to improve your future is what really matters. This is exactly what continuous improvement implies and I have no doubts about Apple’s future behavior in this case.
Don’t forget that the regulators are also on a learning curve too. Massive data centers aren’t the same as massive hog farms. However, they do get to pave over their mistakes by fining the companies they are overseeing. Works out pretty cleanly for them.
As far as Mr Very Very Very Bad Conspiracy Theory is concerned ... whew, I don’t even want to go there.
Hmm, so if I accidentally kill someone while driving compared to someone who isn’t a multimillionaire, according to your views I should be held to higher account, even if the exact same circumstances prevailed?
Or or if Someone illegally parks a Ferrari, and the next day, in the exact same spot, someone else illegally parks a Dodge Challenger, the Ferrari owner should be fined more for the infraction?
Goodness no. Both you & the non-millionaire would be in jail & denied freedom until your time was served. As your freedom is not based on the amount you earn that I think that would be an equal deterrent. ie. you are both losing 100% of your freedom.
But if the Ferarri owner is paying a fine that is just loose change to him, then he may even decide it makes more financial sense to park there everyday as opposed to time lost trying to find a free spot in that congested area. If the Dodge owner copped the same fine and couldn't cover all of his mortgage payment that month as a result he probably would think twice before doing it again. They are unequal deterrent effects.
Of course if the Ferrari owner just leases the car for show and actually isn't a millionaire at all (he's just faking it ) then sure, paying the same fine as the Dodge owner would have an equal deterrent effect.
There are reasonable arguments that the effect of the penalty on the person (or company) is specifically how you determine equal treatment. It’s a fact that courts and jails are clogged with poor people who get caught in financial death spirals because of fees for minor infractions. In the example above, when faced with paying a parking fine or the mortgage (or more likely rent), the Dodge (let’s make it a 1993 minivan instead of a Challenger) owner will pay the rent. Then the unpaid parking fine gets compounded and thus costs more, and is even more unpayable for that person. A few more like that and the person is cited to court. Going to court means missing work and losing income. Not going to court results in a bench warrant. The bench warrant results in jail time, which results in a lost job, which results in eviction. The still unpaid parking fines and court costs result in loss of the driver’s license. Driving the Dodge again without a license results in more jail time, which is o.k., because it’s at least better than living in the Dodge, which will have been towed to the impound lot by now anyway (with accompanying fines). A person with no home, no car and no identification cannot then just go “get a job.”
Fining the person with no money to spare is not equal treatment under the law. Where the Ferrari driver can consider parking fines as a minor inconvenience or even simply a fair price for a great parking spot, the Dodge driver cannot. If a penalty can mean nothing to one person, but can mean cascading disaster to another, how is that equal treatment?
P.S. This is not a fantastical reductio ad absurdum scenario. Things like this happen every day in every city across the country.
P.P.S. In the prior example, with the vehicular manslaughter cases for the multimillionaire and the regular person, you also have ample examples of unequal treatment. The multimillionaire is going to hire a well-connected lawyer who will get the charges dropped or work a plea deal for reduced charges to a speeding fine. A regular person will struggle to afford a lawyer who can perhaps get a plea for a somewhat reduced sentence of reckless driving and time served. The Dodge minivan driver will get a public defender who doesn’t have time to even meet their client until five minutes before walking into court, where they will plead guilty to vehicular manslaughter and hope for lenient sentencing if the judge is in a good mood, which he probably is not.
A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple? I wish fines were based on the gravity of the potential maximum risk to the environment over the longterm multiplied by a factor of the company's wealth so that a company as large as Apple wouldn't even consider trying to get away with harming the environment.
Did you just say that some people should be treated differently under the law versus others? Equal treatment in the eyes of the law is a founding principal of American justice.
A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple?
Yep, completely agree. $40K to a (near) Trillion
Dollar company is not something that would make it think twice, so
you'd have to question whether it is an effective deterrent (and let's
face it, the purpose of a fine is to try and deter you from
re-offending). Now compare that to a $40K fine for a $500K company.
That smaller company would take notice.
I'm a strong supporter of % based fines rather than fixed rate, so they are more meaningful as a deterrent.
Should Macy's means test your income level before telling you the price of a sweater?
And why would a small violation in one state have a fine based on the entire net worth of a one of the largest corporations in the world.
Equality is a good idea. Try it, you'll like it.
The EU uses fines based on worldwide revenues as a proper "cure" for EU specific violations of competition rules. I've always questioned that basis myself but apparently it's all legally supported.
What do competition rules have to do with hazardous waste disposal? Oh right, absolutely nothing at all.
If a company is being anti-competitive to gain an advantage in the market, then it makes sense the penalty would be tied to company revenues. The worldwide revenue is what I take issue with in regards to the EU - they should only impose penalties based on revenues actually in the EU (or whatever area where the behavior was occurring). Let other countries deal with any anti-competitive behaviors in their own manner.
With hazardous waste, the fines should be proportionate to the actual damage done or amount that was mis-handled/spilled. An oil company spilling a few hundred gallons of oil at a refinery (where it can be easily contained/cleaned) is not the same as spilling 100,000 gallons of oil into a river.
In this case it doesn't look like Apple actually caused any harm (as in releasing hazardous waste into the environment), rather they made mistakes in regards to the tracking and reporting of said waste. This is probably why the fine was so small. Unless someone can find any information on hazardous material being released and doing any actual damage.
Hmm, so if I accidentally kill someone while driving compared to someone who isn’t a multimillionaire, according to your views I should be held to higher account, even if the exact same circumstances prevailed?
Or or if Someone illegally parks a Ferrari, and the next day, in the exact same spot, someone else illegally parks a Dodge Challenger, the Ferrari owner should be fined more for the infraction?
Goodness no. Both you & the non-millionaire would be in jail & denied freedom until your time was served. As your freedom is not based on the amount you earn that I think that would be an equal deterrent. ie. you are both losing 100% of your freedom.
But if the Ferarri owner is paying a fine that is just loose change to him, then he may even decide it makes more financial sense to park there everyday as opposed to time lost trying to find a free spot in that congested area. If the Dodge owner copped the same fine and couldn't cover all of his mortgage payment that month as a result he probably would think twice before doing it again. They are unequal deterrent effects.
Of course if the Ferrari owner just leases the car for show and actually isn't a millionaire at all (he's just faking it ) then sure, paying the same fine as the Dodge owner would have an equal deterrent effect.
Fining the person with no money to spare is not equal treatment under the law. Where the Ferrari driver can consider parking fines as a minor inconvenience or even simply a fair price for a great parking spot, the Dodge driver cannot. If a penalty can mean nothing to one person, but can mean cascading disaster to another, how is that equal treatment?
The solution to this is simple, and is already implemented in many areas. The penalty for continued misuse would escalate to prevent people with money from just "paying the fines". For example, speeding tickets. If you get too many tickets you lose your license and ability to drive. If you speed excessively (here where I live in BC) your car gets impounded, and in some cases, you may actually lose your vehicle. This levels the playing field between the rich and poor drivers and targets the behavior of the person, not their wealth.
If this was Apples first infraction, then the fine is appropriate. If they had a long history of infractions, then the fines should go up substantially.
I thought the only byproducts of fuel cell was water. I thought you pass hydrogen throw carbon plates and it creates electricity and produces water, where is the benzene coming from.
Just another example that all these environmentalist say stop using coal and nuclear power and use something like few cell and it to has bad byproducts.
Usually you use a catalyst (we used sulphuric acid in jr. high) to assist with splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen. I think that's what's happening here, or they're using it to reduce erosion of the electrodes(?). https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100641a013
Your comparison with coal and nuclear is weak. Burning coal produces large amounts of toxic gases, ash, often releases Sulphur and Mercury compounds, other heavy metals including radioactive compounds. Nuclear power produces small amounts of extremely long term waste.
Benzene is biodegradable (but toxic in the meantime) and has a number of disposal methods.
A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple?
Yep, completely agree. $40K to a (near) Trillion
Dollar company is not something that would make it think twice, so
you'd have to question whether it is an effective deterrent (and let's
face it, the purpose of a fine is to try and deter you from
re-offending). Now compare that to a $40K fine for a $500K company.
That smaller company would take notice.
I'm a strong supporter of % based fines rather than fixed rate, so they are more meaningful as a deterrent.
Should Macy's means test your income level before telling you the price of a sweater?
And why would a small violation in one state have a fine based on the entire net worth of a one of the largest corporations in the world.
Equality is a good idea. Try it, you'll like it.
The EU uses fines based on worldwide revenues as a proper "cure" for EU specific violations of competition rules. I've always questioned that basis myself but apparently it's all legally supported.
What do competition rules have to do with hazardous waste disposal? Oh right, absolutely nothing at all.
I don't disagree with you but that's not what was being discussed. What we WERE talking about in that exchange did have a common connection.
Comments
Scenario 2: Your son and daughter both get a failing grade in history. Your policy is to remove something they enjoy. Also known as negative punishment (not to be confused with negative reinforcement—see link below). Your son loves to play with his Nintendo Switch and your daughter loves to talk on the phone with her friends on weeknights so you confiscate your son's Switch until his grades are back up and your don't let your daughter talk on the phone or hang out with her friends on weeknights until her grades are back up. The same catalyst but with different actions because reversing the punishments for the roles would have no impact.
2) Yes! Companies should be treated differently than individuals under the law. While you may believe that Samsung's penalty for stealing Apple's IP for nearly a decade is fair, I don't think for a second that it does a damn thing to stop Samsung (or othersfrom continuing to steal) l IP when they know that the financial punishment will never fit the crime under the current law. Personally, I find the "we can afford to be unethical" stance to be deplorable, and frankly I'm surprised that you would take that position in favor of Samsung or doing reputable damage to the environment and its people.
3) No, equal treatment has never been a founding principle of the American justice system. if it was the demographics of those incarcerated would look a lot different.
Bottom line: Punishments should fit the crime in order to deter future crime (which includes rehabilitation, if applicable).
Hmm, so if I accidentally kill someone while driving compared to someone who isn’t a multimillionaire, according to your views I should be held to higher account, even if the exact same circumstances prevailed?
Or or if Someone illegally parks a Ferrari, and the next day, in the exact same spot, someone else illegally parks a Dodge Challenger, the Ferrari owner should be fined more for the infraction?
Legally supported simply means some government decided to make it law. Slavery was once legally supported. Is that your argument for the practice?
You neglect to address another outcome; that companies might not risk innovation. There have been many hazardous chemicals used in the electronics industry, for example. Advances allow companies to replace these with less hazardous, and eventually safe, chemicals and substances. But what company would have even invented the integrated circuit, or solder, or chemical circuit board etching, or any of numerous other processes used to build the modern electronic industry had they been liable to extremes for mishaps in the handling of hazardous materials. Safety procedures are put in place, or should be, to safeguard against mishaps, and these should meet standards regulated by government. That is the bar companies should be tasked with meeting; not have some sword hovering over their necks should something unforeseen take place. The application of treble damages for intentional, deliberate acts exists to cover your issues, and perhaps that should be raised to 4x or 10x. But to scale according to the size of the entity involved is to stop
innovation by those with too much wealth to risk. You’d have only the underfunded garage startups producing any innovation, with anyone who has worked for thirty or forty years to build a large and successful business too shy to risk it all on the cutting edge. Meanwhile, your laws would not be adopted by China, and there is where the future of innovation and risk would find its new home.
But none of your arguments make any sense when when discussing a the handling and disposal of hazardous materials and their effects on the environment. (See previous Wikipedia link on previous page)
PS: Mr. Pruitt, is that you?
As a deterrent, the percentage system seems to have been effective and I believe it was only implemented in the first place as the fixed system wasn't having the desired effect on companies that probably saw themselves as above the law as a result of their financial clout.
In the end consumers always pay for all the good and bad, even the good intents of people thinking they are doing good things with bad outcomes. Like hey use a fuel cell verses fossil fuels but they forgot it has a bad byproduct of benzene, oops they missed that one.
Don’t forget that the regulators are also on a learning curve too. Massive data centers aren’t the same as massive hog farms. However, they do get to pave over their mistakes by fining the companies they are overseeing. Works out pretty cleanly for them.
As far as Mr Very Very Very Bad Conspiracy Theory is concerned ... whew, I don’t even want to go there.
Fining the person with no money to spare is not equal treatment under the law. Where the Ferrari driver can consider parking fines as a minor inconvenience or even simply a fair price for a great parking spot, the Dodge driver cannot. If a penalty can mean nothing to one person, but can mean cascading disaster to another, how is that equal treatment?
P.S. This is not a fantastical reductio ad absurdum scenario. Things like this happen every day in every city across the country.
P.P.S. In the prior example, with the vehicular manslaughter cases for the multimillionaire and the regular person, you also have ample examples of unequal treatment. The multimillionaire is going to hire a well-connected lawyer who will get the charges dropped or work a plea deal for reduced charges to a speeding fine. A regular person will struggle to afford a lawyer who can perhaps get a plea for a somewhat reduced sentence of reckless driving and time served. The Dodge minivan driver will get a public defender who doesn’t have time to even meet their client until five minutes before walking into court, where they will plead guilty to vehicular manslaughter and hope for lenient sentencing if the judge is in a good mood, which he probably is not.
What do competition rules have to do with hazardous waste disposal? Oh right, absolutely nothing at all.
If a company is being anti-competitive to gain an advantage in the market, then it makes sense the penalty would be tied to company revenues. The worldwide revenue is what I take issue with in regards to the EU - they should only impose penalties based on revenues actually in the EU (or whatever area where the behavior was occurring). Let other countries deal with any anti-competitive behaviors in their own manner.
With hazardous waste, the fines should be proportionate to the actual damage done or amount that was mis-handled/spilled. An oil company spilling a few hundred gallons of oil at a refinery (where it can be easily contained/cleaned) is not the same as spilling 100,000 gallons of oil into a river.
In this case it doesn't look like Apple actually caused any harm (as in releasing hazardous waste into the environment), rather they made mistakes in regards to the tracking and reporting of said waste. This is probably why the fine was so small. Unless someone can find any information on hazardous material being released and doing any actual damage.
The solution to this is simple, and is already implemented in many areas. The penalty for continued misuse would escalate to prevent people with money from just "paying the fines". For example, speeding tickets. If you get too many tickets you lose your license and ability to drive. If you speed excessively (here where I live in BC) your car gets impounded, and in some cases, you may actually lose your vehicle. This levels the playing field between the rich and poor drivers and targets the behavior of the person, not their wealth.
If this was Apples first infraction, then the fine is appropriate. If they had a long history of infractions, then the fines should go up substantially.
Your comparison with coal and nuclear is weak. Burning coal produces large amounts of toxic gases, ash, often releases Sulphur and Mercury compounds, other heavy metals including radioactive compounds. Nuclear power produces small amounts of extremely long term waste.
Benzene is biodegradable (but toxic in the meantime) and has a number of disposal methods.