Corporations, through guidance of new laws, in the future in the United States, should be held more accountable for environmental crimes, because without these new laws corporations will continue to pay meniscal fines and serve little to no time in prisons for destroying the environment in which we have to live and survive. Corporations throughout history have lived within the protection of the government. The reason I say this is because throughout history corporations got away with literally murdering our environment by following weak laws and having very few standards. The action of corporations only changed when society began to have an issue with breathing bad air, drinking water which made us sick and chemical causing cancers and other illnesses being released into the environment. The reason this changed was due to people rising up and demanding more from our elected officials and our corporations. A huge step forward in holding companies accountable was the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 by presidential order. It was President Nixon believe or not that created the agency. The reason the EPA was born was due to a fire which happen on the Cuyahoga River in Ohio in 1969. The reason the river catches fire was due to it being so polluted and just a year later Nixon signed the presidential order to create the EPA. Another by-product of the Cuyahoga River fire was the passing of the Clean Water and the great Lakes Quality Agreement and this was the beginning of having higher standards and regulations in protecting the environment thru new laws. Another good law that was signed by President Nixon was the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970. This act requires all federal organizati... ... middle of paper ... ...ervous system damage in animal studies, still remains in use today. Criminal enforcement of the environmental regulations has radically gotten bigger ever since the passing of the Superfund law in the 1980. This law gave prosecutors the ammo to go after corporation’s executives, managers and low level workers. In the eyes of the EPA stronger laws is what helps deter corporations from violating environmental rules and regulations. But I fell that the punishment should be in line with as though they have sold a kilo of cocaine and then it will make an even bigger difference, because these billion dollars companies doesn’t fear a fine most of them would write it off on their taxes and would gladly do the twelve or so months of federal prison time. But in their eyes they are the ones getting over because they just made money by not doing the right thing.
Exxon/Mobil, one of the nation’s leading oil producers, has its main refinery located in Beaumont, Texas. Each year, the residents of Beaumont/Port Arthur have to contend with the 39,000 pounds of pollution spewed each year by the Exxon refinery. Exxon’s emissions are 385% above the state refinery average. In 1999, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Committee (TNRCC) allowed the plant to increase their emissions, without allowing the public to have a say in the matter. Interestingly, 95% of the people living near the plant are of African American descent and are in the poverty range. Some believe that this, along with the lack of education in the area, allows Exxon to get away with such high emissions. Residents in nearby neighborhoods have been complaining of headaches, nausea, eye, and throat irritation for years. Since 1997, Mobil has repeatedly violated health standards in its emissions of two key air pollutants: sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide, These “rotten egg” smells are so strong, one can smell it through a car driving past the refinery. After numerous complaints and one record of a refinery worker becoming unconscious because of the fumes, the EPA awarded Exxon with a $100,000 environmental justice grant in October of 1998. Hopefully, Exxon has put the money to good use and cleaned up their emissions.
With annual revenue of US $19.02 billion, Chevron Corporation is the 16th largest integrated oil and gas energy company in the world. Globally they account for a workforce of approximately 62,000 (Forbes 2011). In 2010, the company produced 2.763 million barrels of oil per day (Chevron 2012). Corporations as large as Chevron owe a great amount of responsibility towards the society and environment above and beyond the economic and legal obligations. The industry is strongly linked to environmental scandals and companies make various efforts to address these issues (Farache and Perks 2010, 235). The following thesis will review the Environmental performance of Chevron in terms of fulfilling social needs within society and stakeholders.
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
The 1960s were a period in which the American people began to express a growing concern about the natural and human environment -- from the need to preserve natural lands to avoiding the dangers of air and water pollution. The federal government enacted many regulations to protect the quality of life.
...oration to exist there must be individuals who are running it. Therefore any offence that is committed by a corporation, in actually is being committed by individual/s in the course of their occupation.
...tained a streak of sustaining a strong society when suggesting their laws into the Criminal Justice System. Nonetheless, the recent proposal discussed on whether environmental harm should be criminalized has sparked controversy. There are many pros and cons that can be acknowledged in this case. One main thing is certain; the environment is very sacred to every human being and should be well cared for. Thus, there are many other techniques that can do this rather than it simply being placed in the Criminal Code. Civilians need to have a fair chance to deal with problems and as a whole; they can come together to help this environmental issue. Non-legal regulators can work together with society to better our world. Taking legal action would make things more complicated than need be when considering a law that has more negatives to our justice system than positives.
In response to the rapid deterioration of the living environment caused by industrial and automobile pollution, its severity highlighted by the burning of the Cuyahoga River in 1969,16 Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, requiring all executive agencies to draft environmental assessments and impact statements for every federal project.16 Nixon not only signed the law but issued an executive order that created the Environmental Protection Agency to advance the cause of protecting nature.1 Henceforth, he endorsed a number of major environmental legislations, including the Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.7 Nixon also encouraged Congress to devote more resources into healthcare and medical research, even suggesting the creation of a federalised Medicaid for poor households with children and the health insurance employer mandate.7 In another instance, he allied with Democrats, liberal Republicans, and the Black Caucus to cancel the construction of the Three Sisters Bridge in favour of retaining the Washington
Congress enacted legislation now known as the Clean Water Act. During the Truman era, originally called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The bill Congress passed in 1972 was an overhaul of the original act. The Clean Water Act set limits on the amount of pollutants industries and cities could discharge and gave the Environmental Protection Agency the power to sue and penalize polluters that exceeded those limits. Congress banned DDT, reduced emissions and sued major cities.
The problem with pollution prevention is that it requires people to understand more than the intimate details of the production process; they must also understand the technical possibilities. Many corporations have environmental managers, which are generally responsible for helping corporations comply with the law. According to the case study, the work of environmental managers often expose them to many pollution prevention solutions, but they often have trouble getting access to production areas. Production often sees Environmental Managers as "the compliance police".
The Criminal Process in Environmental Regulation. (n.d.). UH Law. Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/Environmental-Practicum-2014/syllabus/chap6.pdf
...ty. It is available to reflect the social values of a society such as new concepts of justice. The law Reform Commission of Canada is persistently submitting legal proposals that can be used to improve a society and it also serves as a crucial role to the structure of law and the government and the Canadian Criminal Justice System. A proposal that has drawn a lot of debate is the idea of whether environmental destruction and maltreatment should be criminalized. After examining the given themes, environmental harm should not be considered a crime. The undesirable outcomes of criminalizing environmental harm outweigh the positives of criminalizing such a reform. Although the environment affects people’s lives, so do the laws and regulations. This crime is too broad and may result in more harm than good in the Canadian society and the Canadian Criminal Justice System.
Regulating the toxic waste emissions of polluting organizations has been a costly and time-consuming element of environmental policy for as long as there have been restrictions on these emissions. However, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), signed into law in late 1986, set forth a number of standards that required polluters to disclose information about their emissions levels to the public and started a chain of events that has led to the creation of numerous information disclosure policies. One of the main thoughts behind these laws, aside from the benefit of increased public awareness of pollution in the community and the ability to plan for emergencies involving the wastes from polluters, was that with firms’ toxics use information available to the public, polluting firms would be motivated to regulate their own emissions in an effort to maintain positive public images. Many other laws were later passed with the same ideas in mind, so that there now are a number of different laws requiring information disclosure and encouraging self-regulation by polluting firms and facilities.
The criminal acts of big banks and mortgage lenders have cost thousands of people to lose their homes over the last several years and it isn’t just the price of the material possessions that should be taken into consideration because the emotional impact is immeasurable. Fraudulent charges increase the cost of Medicare and all taxpayers bear the burden. Polluters who illegally release toxic substances into the air, rivers, lakes, and oceans put millions of lives at risk and increase the instances of diseases that cost lives, not to mention killing wildlife and destroying ecosystems. Businesses put employees at risk by ignoring or skirting safety standards to save a buck. In the last decade, there have been several instances of companies using unethical and illegal practices that in the end cost shareholders and employees their life savings and livelihood. Con men like Barnard Madoff cost investors not only their life savings, but peace of mind as well. White-collar crimes have long-term impacts because it can take years to recoup losses, if ever, and they harm the psyche and cause mistrust and skepticism, which when all is said and done aren’t bad to have in small
Companies that refuse to accept that they will face a strict and demanding environment. The most talented human capital companies that do work to care for natural resources, the regulation will raise the cost of not using resources properly, consumers will demand products and environmentally friendly. In short, choosing between sustainability and growth is not an option.