Bruce said:
Ok, you got me. Every day, my co-horts drag the company exhaust hose down to central park and spray all the trees and children.
Come on, don't play dumb. Hyperbole on your part doesn't discount that pollution exists because corporations, for years, used the least expensive way to dispose of waste/industrial byproduct. Before the EPA and the watchdog groups even existed, corporations weren't willing to monitor or control their waste output. Come on, this is old news. Catch up.
Yes, that was history. Things are getting better all the time thanks to advancements in science.
Yes, but advancements in science are partially the result of the watchdog groups. You think corporations want to spend money to research alternate means of waste disposal?
You got that right! If it were up to me, I wouldn't release a product until it's fully tested. Businessmen want to release a product the moment someone is willing to pay for it. We work for the businessmen, so we can't exactly say no. The best we can do is try to hide the research until we think the product is ready, but that's a real good way to get fired.
You're arguing against yourself, but at least you're starting to get it. Corporations certainly aren't the Great Satan some in the left make them out to be, but by and large the bottom line is the almighty dollar. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the health of this planet and its inhabitants don't suffer as a result of their profit.
You made a point earlier that corporation don't want to affect the health of the consumer, but that's not entirely true. Corporation often overlook or downplay environmental and/or health studies that criticize their product/factory processes because it harms potential profit. Long term health problems? Long term environmental impact? Bah, as long as profits roll in for the here and now...some could care less. Understandable, but no less despiccable.
Take greenhouse gasses and global warming. A large majority of scientists say its definitely happening, and that greenhouse gasses are a probable cause. Maybe so, maybe not. Yet, with the current evidence and studies we have so far conducted, isn't it more logical to proceed, globally speaking, with some amount of caution instead of bulldozing ahead heedlessly...as the conservatives do?
But eleminating pollution and making industrial processes more efficient is even more profitable. Pollution is expensive. You have to pay for those raw materials and if 20% of the end material is going out the smoke stack or into the river instead of going to the customer, you're losing money.
See, the problem with your arguments is that, for every good point you make, you over generalize and paint everything black or white.
Pollution isn't always expensive, and for some corporations disposing easily of waste...instead of, say, paying to have it safely disposed of, is way more profitable. Raw material usually isn't going up the smoke stack or in the river, my friend...its called waste or by-product. If a company burns coal to produce energy, the smoke produced from burning isn't a part of the raw material. Not sure you've thought this through enough...
Ok, I'll give credit to the clean-up crews. I would agree that the big guys should foot the bill for it and take responsibility, but it's the individual corporate heads that should be fined, not the company. You fine the company, you hurt the workers, never the people manipulating the cash flow.
Agreed, but with the EPA on stand down for the next four years, the pollution is going to keep building up, and when its finally time to clean it up...its going to be way more expensive than it would have been initially...and then the taxpayer himself might have to foot the bill. Just check out the Superfund sites.
