I have a theory about people who "don't trust the govt."

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

that they are among the least likely to join the PTA.

That is, they are among the least likely to pitch in for the common good.

People like Thomas Jefferson and the dudes he hung out with might take issue with that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not the reasonable legislation that people oppose but the labyrinth of approvals, the types of extensive clean up and changes to smokestacks, which aren't just "a few bucks" that matter.

How clean is clean? These are the things that cost more than they should, thanks to government.

There is no doubt that cleanup (CERCLA) is expensive. That's why prevention (RCRA) is so important. Spending a little more to properly treat and dispose waste is orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to clean up contaminated soils and water. And prior to RCRA/CERCLA there was essentially no limitation. So you had companies simply digging holes and burying 55 gallon drums of toxic chemicals or just dumping them in unlined ponds.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

There is no doubt that cleanup (CERCLA) is expensive. That's why prevention (RCRA) is so important. Spending a little more to properly treat and dispose waste is orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to clean up contaminated soils and water. And prior to RCRA/CERCLA there was essentially no limitation. So you had companies simply digging holes and burying 55 gallon drums of toxic chemicals or just dumping them in unlined ponds.

An attorney for the government lives in our ward and is prosecuting the local power providers for not cleaning up their smoke stacks. The problem is, these cost millions and millions.

Do I want environmentally safe, clean water? Of course.

However, a while back, my engineering BiL worked for Dow Chemical in California. They had to close the plant because the environmental costs just to repaint the facilities were the proverbial straw that broke the bank.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

An attorney for the government lives in our ward and is prosecuting the local power providers for not cleaning up their smoke stacks. The problem is, these cost millions and millions.

Do I want environmentally safe, clean water? Of course.

However, a while back, my engineering BiL worked for Dow Chemical in California. They had to close the plant because the environmental costs just to repaint the facilities were the proverbial straw that broke the bank.

Well, if it's anecdotes you want, I once had dinner with three families who had lost young children to leukemia caused by drinking contaminated ground water. It was pretty sobering.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well, if it's anecdotes you want, I once had dinner with three families who had lost young children to leukemia caused by drinking contaminated ground water. It was pretty sobering.

You won't find anybody with an anecdote that said the environmental laws can be complied with at low cost; no the cost is quite high.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You won't find anybody with an anecdote that said the environmental laws can be complied with at low cost; no the cost is quite high.

I am not sure I ever said it was low cost. Sorry if I mislead. My point was, the preventative measures are far cheaper than the cure.

The high cost, ironically, emphasizes the need for the legislation. Without legislation, most companies did not act in the public's best interest.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am not sure I ever said it was low cost. Sorry if I mislead. My point was, the preventative measures are far cheaper than the cure.

The high cost, ironically, emphasizes the need for the legislation. Without legislation, most companies did not act in the public's best interest.

Most times clean up is more expensive that preventative measures, but sometimes these preventative measures, which may be excessive, can be cost prohibitive, even for local utilities. If utilities can't afford it, who can?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You won't find anybody with an anecdote that said the environmental laws can be complied with at low cost; no the cost is quite high.

uh...that's the point.

get companies to internalize the costs they impose on others so resources are allocated most efficiently.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

uh...that's the point.

get companies to internalize the costs they impose on others so resources are allocated most efficiently.

The real question which is never answered, "are the restrictions necessary or simply useful?"

And it's an easy question, except if a house of poor people have a utility bill for 1000 dollars each month, then people for the poor complain about that.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The real question which is never answered, "are the restrictions necessary or simply useful?"

And it's an easy question, except if a house of poor people have a utility bill for 1000 dollars each month, then people for the poor complain about that.

I already answered it. If they're causing leukemia and health hazards then they're necessary. How much cleanup is optimal is a question that takes data to answer.

Utilities is a natural monopoly where prices are set by regulatory bodies anyway.