THEY spill - YOU clean

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Pinto, Sep 28, 2003.

  1. Pinto macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #1
    More energy shenanigans.


     
  2. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #2
    Hey, I have no problem with creating a fund to clean up environmental damage from polluting companies.

    But it should only be used to cleanup damage when a company can absolutely not pay for it. Which means going all the way to bankruptcy court, if necessary.

    If a company pollutes irresponsibly or intentionally, and they can't afford to clean it up, they shouldn't be in business anymore. No government loans to pay it back. No leeway. Either pay, or go bankrupt trying. The government should get priority in retrieving funds from the bankrupt company's assets to pay back the fund used for cleanup.

    Somehow I doubt this bill has these provisions.

    Taft
     
  3. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    I don't remember when the $30 billion "Superfund" bill passed and was signed into law. Late 1970s?

    Anyway, a provision of the law was that whoever was the present owner of polluted land was responsible for the costs of cleanup, no matter what earlier owner had actually done the nasty.

    After some ten or fifteen years, no cleanup work had been done, but over half the $30 billion had been spent in legal costs of court actions brought by present owners who had not made the pollution occur. Lawyers got wealthy, but no cleanup...

    That's one of the reasons a bank won't finance the purchase of a tract where once there were underground gasoline storage tanks at some little Mom'n'Pop operation, now defunct and the land desired for other uses.

    As a generalization, I'd rather see a cleanup than a lawsuit. Better our tax money gets spent on cleanup than legal fees--'cause it's one or the other.

    'Rat
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    why? won't the money the lawyers get just trickle down anyway?
     
  6. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #6
    The part about the govt. not being allowed to go after a company's insurance company really bothers me. What's an insurance company for?

    As with any regulatory legislation, the Superfund went a little too far. Unfortunately, Congress chose not to alter it and it went to the courts instead. It's become a lot more workable over the past decade and a little tweaking is in order but this is obviously a payoff to gw's buddies and goes way too far.

    I agree that any business that chooses not to monitor its tanks and allows massive contamination to take place should go out of business. The little leaks should be paid for by the insurance companies.

    Water sources are very expensive to uncontaminate if they can be uncontaminated at all.
     
  7. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #7
    i'd almost rather let it trickle down from telemarketers, though...
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    Ah, shameless voodoo Bushonomics and corporate payoffs that would make Reagan blush.
     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    remember when reagan revamped the student loan program?

    neither does he.

    (that's what you get for cutting alzheimer's funding, mother****er)
     

Share This Page