Hazardous waste poses a serious threat to public health, requiring immediate corrective action. As a result of this issue, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, known as “Superfund”, giving the authority to clean up these waste sites. This act has been criticized due to lack of funding spent on the actual waste clean up. A disagreement has arisen regarding who is responsible for financing Superfund and the EPA’s involvement in funding. Bernard Reilly provides the stronger argument, asserting Superfund needs to be revised and the “polluter pays” provision should be implemented. In opposition, Ted Williams discusses the problems with not holding polluters strictly liable for their harm …show more content…
By first laying out the problems with Superfund and then providing a solution, his reasoning is easy to follow. For instance, he backs up his claim that the EPA takes unnecessary measures that waste money with evidence. He uses the example of the Swope Superfund site where $5 million was allocated to protect groundwater in case any private wells sunk in the future, but the EPA disregarded private wells had been banned in this location. Once he lays out all of his issues with the current program, he provides a solution. He states by making the EPA more financially invested it would motivate them to be cost efficient and consider “whether the benefits were worth the costs” (Reilly, 247). Another strength of his argument is he uses an economic stance. He explains land with previously contaminated soil is not being used due to investors concern about the liability scheme. This land could be efficiently used and contribute to the economy through its byproducts. A weakness of his argument is his failure explain how the responsibility would be divided up. He does not explain who, how and what resources would be used to determine the exact proportion of responsibility for companies. Even if it could be determined, companies are likely to disagree with their assigned blame. The author suggests the law includes “an alternative dispute …show more content…
While Reilly blames the EPA for wasting money, Williams gets more specific and blames Superfund’s contractors for overcharging the EPA (Williams, 249). Williams believes if polluters are not strictly held responsible, and if the EPA is forced to pay a portion, Superfund will turn into a public-works program (Williams, 252). He does not believe the government should be responsible for companies’ messes. He states citizen will then pay twice- “once with their environment and once with their tax money” (Williams, 252). He explains the insurance companies want to rewrite Superfund so taxpayers are the ones who pay for the cleanups rather than them (Williams, 252). Williams takes a different stance than Reilly on the legal battles due to responsibility disputes. Reilly puts the blame of lawsuits on the EPA for not fairly distributing the responsibility, but William explains the insurance companies are responsible. He uses a study which shows insurers spent $1 billion on defending themselves out of the $1.3 billion they spent on Superfund. Insurance companies refuse large claims because it scares away policyholders and most cases will settle for less money than originally required (Williams, 253). He argues these lawsuits do not harm anyone but the companies since it is only their money wasted (Williams, 254). This is
In the 1898 mayoral election, Frederick Eaton was elected as mayor of Los Angeles; and appointed his associate, William Mulholland- the superintendent of the newly created Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Eaton and Mulholland envisioned a region of Los Angeles that would make Los Angeles become the turn of the century. The limiting factor of that regions growth was water supply. Eaton and Mulholland realized that the Owens Valley had a large amount of runoff from the Sierra Nevada, and a gravity-fed aqueduct that could deliver the Owens water to Los Angeles. During the early 1900’s the United States Bureau of Reclamation made plans to build an irrigation system to help the farmers of the Owens Valley. By 1905, through purchases, and alleged intimidation and bribery, Los Angeles purchased enough water rights to enable construction of the aqueduct.
At the turn of the 21st century, the already vulnerable residents of Mesquite, NM, were receiving an unequal distribution of air, water and other types of pollution because of a nearby multinational company called Helena Chemical. I will examine Helena Chemical Company by using justice theory, considering vulnerability and examining cases between the Mesquite community and Helena Chemical.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates air pollution through various policies passed through the Supreme Court. The scope of this paper is to investigate the Clean Air Act of 1970, and to analyze the impact it has on businesses and society. It provides a rationale for the policy, and contains a brief overview of governmental involvement in regulating air pollution. Further investigation identifies key stakeholders in business, government, and society, and assesses the pros and cons of regulating air pollution. Finally, the paper concludes with limitations of this analysis and recommendations for future action.
Kenneth Schiff wrote an editorial for the Marine Pollution Bulletin in 2014 where he asked environmental scientist about the effectiveness of the Clean Water Act. Three topics were discussed to support their approval; The Cuyahoga River, Platform A and declines in marine life. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio had hit a point 1969 where there was so much oil on the surface of that it caught on fire and now it has been deemed as fishable by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, thanks to the Clean Water Act. Platform A was located in Southern California. In 1969, an explosion occurred, causing 100,000 barrels of oil to devastate beaches along the Pacific Ocean and kill thousands of animals located in this region. Also discussed was the effects of hazardous substances, in this example DDT, on marine life. The use of this pesticide caused brown pelicans and California sea lions to experience intense decline in population- thanks to the Clean Water Act being followed by much research, restrictions and bans were able to be placed on these chemicals, allowing these populations to flourish once more. Within this editorial, there is also many who state that this Act has not been effective enough. One big argument is that the EPA has a list of pollutants that has not changed since the 1970’s yet in the last 40 years, there has
To persuade an audience to support their view, an author must establish their credibility and professionalism or else their argument will be perceived as illegitimate by the readers. Unprofessional statements such as "what's at stake as they busy themselves are your tax dollars and mine, and ultimately our freedom too" (lines 15-17) eliminates the validity of the justification made. The claim that environmentalists consume tax dollars is valid, but since it was presented in a hyperbolic and stereotypical manner, its effectiveness is lost. Exaggerating the effects of environmentalists by proposing that "our freedom" (line 17) is at stake due to the spending of tax dollars is pretentious and therefore decreases the productiveness of the argument as a whole. Stereotypical names given to both sides that are used throughout the passages such as "greens" (line 3) and "right-wingers" (lines 65-66) create a humorous tone that diminishes the credibility of the authors. Humor, a beneficial anecdote in some arguments that adds to the effectiveness when used in moderation, is excessively prevalent in the passages to the extent that both are perceived as absurd. Casual mockery such as the statement "some Bennington College student with a summer job will find an endangered red spider on your property, and before you know what happened the Endangered Species Act will be used to shut you down" (lines 19-23) augments the humorous tone of the passage and eliminates the productiveness of the assertions made. Wilson’s use of satire emphasizes the importance of not only the validity of the points made in justifying an argument, but also the diction used by the author and presentation in attributing to the argument's overall
Soledad, A. (2012). UNEP: World Congress on Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability. Environmental Policy and Law, 42(4/5), 204-205. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1239086063/fulltextPDF/938578CF70664516PQ/3?accountid=28180
...nerators, the Anti-Toxics movement is another important movement that has added to the struggle with Environmental Justice. The Anti-Toxins movement began in the late 1970s as soon as President Jimmy Carter acknowledged Love Canal, New York, a catastrophe spot. Carter in due course evacuated the area for safety reasons. Ever since the evacuation the former citizens of Love Canal got together to form the Citizens Clearinghouse of Hazardous Waste. Its goal is to aid thousands of neighboring clusters to fight against deadly waste exposures. Several anti-toxics movement have formed during the past several years to advocate for stricter government policy with regard to pollution prevention. These groups argue for the abolishment of toxic waste, arguing that some areas would be affected by pollutants given the structure of the economy of the United States of America.
At the four year mark of the Deep Water Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows British Petroleum (BP) to drill for oil in the gulf once again. Many consumer advocate groups, chiefly Public Citizens, have voiced concerns over this decision. The lack of corporate accountability and oversight makes this decision seem unethical to these advocates groups. However, the company agrees to follow the agency’s ethic and safety procedure given the new leases. Yet, a series of accidents on its infrastructure makes reform seem doubtful for the company.
Within the Gilbane Gold case, the major problem is the contribution of water pollution by dumping chemicals to speed production for Z CORP. However, there is doubt as to what extent the company violated city regulations. Tom Richards believes that Z-CORP broke regulations repeatedly but Professor Massin believes that it is not solid evidence. Part of the problem is that two different tests are involved: an older and a less sensitive test which does not break regulations but there is also the newer and more sensitive one which does. The newer test was said that the company just broke city regulations, but not by a large amount.
For example experts argued that the siting of landfills in Warren County made no scientific sense. This explains that the pollution sources are purposely placed in the vicinity of minorities despite the knowledge of the fact that it will the residents drinking water. Also, as shown in the article, “Environmental justice: Income, Race, and Health, “... Asthma prevalence in the U.S in significantly higher in minority and low-income populations than in the general population. Unequal exposure to environmental factors that triggers or exacerbate asthma may play a role.” This shows how the government places hazardous companies in minority dominant communities, which exposes them to toxic hazardous and unsafe conditions. This demonstrates how environmental racism is marked by contamination from different sources of
In 1995, an important event marked a victory for the national GreenPeace organization, and for humans alike. The Brent Spar oil installation was not allowed to be dumped into the ocean. The importance of this decision lied in the fact that there were over 600 oil installations that would someday expire just as the Brent Spar had. When the decision was made to not allow the dumping, it set a precident that the other installations would not be allowed to be dumped, either.
While reading the class textbook in week seven, I had the interest to learn more about Brownfields briefly discussed. So, I utilized the week’s forum to learn in details that brownfields are not just unproductive, contaminated and abandon sites that have negative health consequences on the environments. Rather, brownfields as an author stated a land of opportunity. For instances, former use automobile lumber storage, railroads station, salvage yards and industrial landfill. However, brownfields turn out to have success stories. An article I read by Felten Jennifer stated that to redevelop and remove contamination of such sites, Environmental Protection Agency developed a program in 1995. Also, Brownfield Legislation bill was passed to support
... the pollution, it can be concluded that total external population has the most number of population that will benefit from the decision. Generally, the position that Joelle must take is to mention the illegal dumping modus operandi of her company.
There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk-benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change (Legget, C., 1999). This was a ground breaking decision because it failed to use the common standard of whether a harm was a result of an action on trespass or harm as a result of an action on the case (Ferguson, A., 2005).
(R1) In closing the first argument Summer commits to subjective fallacy when he states dumping toxic waste is “logical” and “impeccable”. He develops this argument by using errors in reasoning, such as these examples. Summer also makes ambiguous claims by make a personal attack on the reader. The phrase “we should face up to that” tells the readers they have been denying something. Summer uses this phrase to conclude his argument of pollution dumping.