Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Rasa
Lv 6
Rasa asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Can someone explain this to me?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_he_me/us...

So the litmus test for whether or not something is okay for a corporation is whether or not it is excessively harmful. Otherwise, they get a relatively free ticket to pollute.

But if I were to dump just one bucket of that pollution into any body of water or down a storm drain, I get a fine.

So does the corporate right to profit trump our individual "privilege" to not being poisoned or not needing to monitor/clean up some other group's mess?

Update:

@rocklt: I don't think retrieving natural gas is imperative to anybody's safety. It would be more beneficial to make them pay the full cost of all their damage so safer, less deadly forms of energy production are more competitive (meaning fairly competitive).

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    1) No (corporations get a free ticket to pollute unconditionally)

    2) Yes (if you did it, you would pay a fine or even go to jail)

    3) Yes (corporations have unlimted rights, you have none)

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    That's an incredibly oversimplified description of how the law responds to toxic torts and pollution-related crime. If a bucket of waste has already been determined to be harmful a corporation can be criminally charged just like a human.

    The excessively harmful test applies in tort (civil) cases, where a victim must show a specific harm but need not show it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Pollution law involves hundreds of rules and you've cited only two of them, and those two are unrelated.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    PA's Department of Natural Resources and Environment does not have a system in place for granting permits for underground disposal or other more environmentally sound methods for disposing of this waste. They need to get on the ball and update their regulations and start requiring operators to dispose of the produced water.

    Discharging into rivers has been the standard practice by oil and gas operators for many years in PA. Most of these discharges pre-date the EPA, and many of PA's rivers are already polluted because of this.

    But the produced water from the older wells is not as polluted as the water from the Marcellus formation, nor do they produce the volumes of water the Marcellus wells do.

    PA DNR needs to get on the stick and update their rules. Issuing permits for deep underground injection of waste water is the best answer for now.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    "So does the corporate right to profit trump our individual "privilege" to not being poisoned"

    Yes, yes it does.

    The FDA and EPA are run at the top by former execs and current stockholders of the companies they supposedly regulate. It is a farce.

    If ya don't believe me, look up Monsanto.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The short answer is yes.

    Remember, their is a benefits side to the equation. Presumably the polluting corporation is saving someone's life with their pharmaceutical drugs, for example.

    Save 1,000,000 cancer patients, kill a few people who might breath bad air or drink bad water.

    Do the math.

    Modernity requires a certain amount of pollution. Did you use toilet paper today? Good, the paper pulp mill poured some pollution into the world for your convenience.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.