Deadly power plants? Study fuels debate
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/
As I understand it, Bush still has also not changed his policy on new source review.
As I understand it, Bush still has also not changed his policy on new source review.
Comments
He knows if he forces them all to high standards (which costs lots of money), he won't have anyone to play golf with when he leaves office.
Who are you shitting here?
Originally posted by Moogs
While it's disingenuous to say Bush "caused" those deaths - the Powerplant companies and their owners have free will; if they cared even a little bit about the people living near their plants, they'd upgrade their facilities without the government forcing them to - I agree he has done absolutely nothing to aid the preservation and health of our environment, and has done plenty with his pro-energy-company policies to undermine it.
He knows if he forces them all to high standards (which costs lots of money), he won't have anyone to play golf with when he leaves office.
It is the job of the government to protect the people (you know: life, liberty and blah blah...). In capitalism, people come last so you really cannot blame the companies as their purpose in for existence is profit. You also really can't sue them because you really can't prove an individual death was directly related. Statistically, they are killing people but it's very hard to prove on an individual level. One way around is problem is government-owned utilities (cf. Socialism). The Executive Branch (Bush) controls the EPA and is responsible for every one of those innocent deaths for failing to regulate them properly.
http://cta.policy.net/dirtypower/
Originally posted by Existence
In capitalism, people come last so you really cannot blame the companies as their purpose in for existence is profit.
Are you serious?? Companies have obligations beyond just making money. Namely, things like ensuring that whatever processes they use to make said money, does not endanger workers or people in the immediate community. Companies with large factories and other facilities in residential communities OWE it to the community in question to run things in a reasonable and safe manner. Damn right you can blame a company if they knowingly use production processes that are harmful to the environment or people!
You also really can't sue them because you really can't prove an individual death was directly related.
If you can prove a pattern that is localized to the areas affected by the factory or facility in question, yes you can (and should) sue them. This is the kind of law suit that actually serves a legitimate purpose, unlike the idiots who sue restuarant chains because their products are too hot.
Statistically, they are killing people but it's very hard to prove on an individual level.
It's not easy, but far from impossible also. It's been done before and it will be done again.
The Executive Branch (Bush) controls the EPA and is responsible for every one of those innocent deaths for failing to regulate them properly.
Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. You can say that Bush and Co. created a business environment where irresponsible corporations had more leeway to do bad things instead of less leeway, but ultimately they are still responsible for their own actions.
You going to tell me that when some CEO is presented with information from local hospitals and health officials that his plant emissions are causing cancer, and he then waves it off in order to avoid responsibility, that it's not ultimately his fault? Common. We're talking about a bunch of scumbags who know what their facilities are doing to the environment and the local community, and just deny, deny deny until someone successfully sues their ass.
Not saying Bush is without blame, but he's certainly only one link in the chain here. If I ran a large manufacturing facility and someone came to me and said "hey look, you have to stop using this chemical in your processes... it's causing serious ground water problems which we believe is causing birth defects in children being born in the local area...", I'd STOP using the friggin chemical in question until it could be made safe by a different type of filtration or whatever. If I didn't, it wouldn't suddenly become the EPA's fault, because I had the power to stop using it and refused.