Research Paper On Polluter Pays Principle

Polluter Corp. is a company that operates three manufacturing facilities and produces household cleaning products in the United States. The U.S. government grants this company with emission allowances (EAs) that can be used during 2010 to 2030. According to The Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions (FERC), Polluter Corporation records emission allowances as elusive assets with a cost basis of zero. The fiscal year is December 31.

(r) “Environmental Liabilities” means any obligation to pay any civil fines, penalties or costs of assessment, cleanup, removal or remediation for pollution or contamination or expenses for the modification, repair or replacement of any facilities or equipment to comply with federal, state, local or foreign environmental standards.

Bullard – 5 principles towards environmental justice: “guaranteeing the right to environmental protection, preventing harm before it occurs, shifting the burden of proof to the polluters, obviating proof of intent to discriminate, and redressing existing

In Adam R. Murphy’s “Hydraulic Fracturing: Legal Issues and Relevant Issues,” he writes about how there are policies and laws in place to stop pollution, but that there

The purpose of this piece is to draw awareness to the many contradictions relating environmental justice movements and to create a society more conscious of decisions by considering consequences.

Pollution has only become a global problem, or been recognised as a global problem in the last few years. The question at hand, of eliminating all pollution can be worse than 'bad', warrants validity as it would severely decrease the standard of living (and many other technological advances that make our life pleasurable) along with the goods and services provided by the polluters. It is not feasible to eliminate all pollution, nor is pollution purely a problem of industrial societies. The issue for economists is how to reach the optimal level of pollution as there is distortion interfering with the working of what is known as

In an article written by Patrice Lumumba Simms, it is described that when looking at classic environmentalism so far, most of the policies implemented follow three broad categories. The first is pollution amelioration which targets reduction of pollutants. The second is hazard and risk management which, unsurprisingly, focuses on protecting humans from toxins that are hazardous to human health or the environment. The third, and final, is resource protection and conservation which seeks to prevent over utilization of natural resources and preserve nature. A common response to these categories is that they function as a “rising tide that lifts all boats,” (15) meaning that any type of environmental improvement is going to improve conditions for everyone. When using this argument, there is no problem with the classic environmental thinking because everyone benefits, potentially minority and low-income individuals more than anyone else. However, this argument is false. When creating policies, the EPA and organizations like it usually “do not approach programmatic decision-making with an eye toward ensuring comprehensive protection of every community” (16). For example, when discussing hazardous waste regulation, the EPA has regulations in place to manage disposal. However, many

Companies are in business to make a profit so why would they lose so of it on paying fines for not following regulations set forth. This is a problem with deterrence is that some companies make so much money they can afford to pay the fines or some may not get caught. The biggest thing for companies to determine whether or not to pay fines for polluting is the cost vs benefit analysis. Companies often have to get permits for certain kind of work and these permits could be revoked and can come with fines for violation them. Some states fail to maintain these permits to a level that is required and often impose little fines. Companies could also find loopholes in certain permits letting them get around certain fines for a certain amount of time. In Florida, “If it is cheaper to illegally pollute a local river than it is to invest in cleaner technology and pollution-control equipment, that is exactly what many companies will do” (Baliga, N) If you think about it, bringing in new technology to control pollution could cost millions upon millions of dollars which would

Specifically, in the presence of negative externalities, a Pigovian Tax can be utilized to correct the externalities and produce an efficient outcome. In regards to hydraulic fracking, a Pigovian Tax can be applied to the quantity of gas pumped daily during the process of shale fracking. A Pigovian Tax would incentivize producers to reduce the quantity of gas pumped daily as well as generate revenue that can be used to offset the negative effects of hydraulic fracking in communities. Exemplified by Graph 4, the Marginal Private Cost endured by the firms would be shifted upwards by the amount of the tax to the point of Marginal Private Cost + Tax. Due to this increased cost, producers would have the incentive to diminish daily output of gas to the socially optimum level of QS, which considers the Marginal Social Cost as well. The level of the tax would equal the external damage at the quantity produced, which is represented by the difference between Marginal Social Cost and Marginal Private Cost at the point they both cross the Marginal Private Benefit. Therefore, the total tax revenue is represented by the light purple area. By utilizing a tax, it offers an economic incentive to hydraulic fracking firms to reduce production levels as well as compensate communities with the tax revenue. However, the Pigovian Tax would only apply to gas pumped from the process of shale fracking in order to address the specific negative externalities that arise during hydraulic fracking. Additionally, the tax revenue collected can be distributed back to the communities

This passage reminded me about this book I read, ‘’ Civil Action,’’ the book was resolves around the illegal dumping of the industrial chemical solvent, trichloroethylene, and how it contaminated the city’s drinking water causing Leukemia, cancer and other health issues among the people of Woburn. For instance, there were 12 deaths (8 of them children). However, a law suit was brought to this company since a young boy died of Leukemia. The government need to be held accountable for these damage since they are the one who are making the rules. I believe that the health of citizens should always come first no matter what. I wonder when other companies are going to spend forward admitting to what they are doing to our environment? When will

Mankiw provides an economists opinion that “a clean environment can be viewed as simply another good,” yet environmentalist argue that there should not be a price tag on human rights to a clean, healthy environment. Theoretically, a corrective tax will yield the same price and quantity of pollution as the issuing of pollution permits, but morally speaking, “that way of life, and the attitudes that support it, are what we should discourage, even stigmatize.” As opposed to companies buying their right to pollute, individuals and companies will often justify their carbon footprint,

Living in a highly industrialized world that is ruled by capitalism, the concern for the environment often takes a back seat. Individuals or companies nowadays prioritize achieving optimal profit without putting into mind what their respective actions or productions may have an effect on the environment. They do not realize how important the role of our environment plays in the quality of human life. We can say that a good environment leads to a better quality life, while a bad environment could lead to a harmful and unproductive life. Now, it becomes unfair and unjust when the risks and costs of a company affect a certain group of people and on the opposite side of the spectrum another group of individuals enjoy the benefits without costs. The individuals that are affected badly are usually from Third World Countries where the distribution of risk and costs are not even (Low and Gleeson 1999). This is where Environmental Justice comes in. Environmental Justice mainly concerns the welfare of human beings (Low and Gleeson 1999). Talking about cities where capitalism surges from, it has been argued that these cities are ‘unfairly structured’ (Low and Gleeson 1999). Basically, what this is saying is that the wealthier you are, the better or cleaner the environment. On the other hand, if you are poor, then the environment around you will have more health risks. This kind of injustice or disparity is what adds fuel to the fire of environmental justice. In

Should the U.S federal government adopt a carbon tax to decrease c02 emissions of public and private franchises.

• Companies do not pay the full costs of their impact. For example the costs of cleaning pollution often fall on society in general. As a result profits of corporations are enhanced at the expense of social or ecological welfare.

One of the main misunderstandings in environmental crime is the lack of consistency in the definition and classification of environmental crime. The primary problem is differing perspectives as to what constitutes as environmental crime, embedded in moral, philosophical and legalistic interpretations of harm and in what circumstances does this harm becomes a crime (White, 2008). Many criminologists have put forth perspectives which explain the reasons why individuals and corporations engage in activities that cause environmental harms. These perspectives can be linked to the original environmental or green criminology perspectives. Pollution and dumping has become an increasingly costly problem for the environment. As a results,