since we don't have a conservation forum

[albula]

Had not seen this quantified before. Have we really done this to ourselves? Sad news.

Report: Over half of U.S. waters are too polluted to swim or fish

At 50 years, the Clean water Act has had success. But there are key sources of water pollution yet to be addressed.

www.hcn.org

 

[_WW_]

I've just discovered that I am being conserved in plastic!

All Health Topics

All Health Topics

www.webmd.com

 

[Rob Allen]

The human population and consumer demand cannot continue to grow and sustain a clean environment at the same time. More people and more demand has a byproduct of more pollution.
Want new fly rod? That creates pollution.

We really are in a one or the other situation.
Population and consumer demand are going to win that argument every time.

 

[RCF]

.

 

[Mike Cline]

Plastics are not forever: Bugs already evolved 30,000 new plastic eating enzymes « JoNova

joannenova.com.au

 

[krusty]

Had not seen this quantified before. Have we really done this to ourselves? Sad news.

Report: Over half of U.S. waters are too polluted to swim or fish

At 50 years, the Clean water Act has had success. But there are key sources of water pollution yet to be addressed.

www.hcn.org

Have we really done this to ourselves?

Of course we have! Having spent almost my entire working life (45 years) In the water quality pollutant control world I can attest to the fact that every polluter (be they municipalities or industry) fights tooth and nail to spend as little as possible to achieve the aims of the federal Clean Water Act.

In fact, they only do so when faced with potential (or imminent) serious legal enforcement action. Were it not for statutory mandates they'd still be dumping raw sewage and toxic industrial waste in our waters like most third world countries.

There is no short term ROI for doing otherwise. And in America, short term is what we're all about.

 

[Rob Allen]

Have we really done this to ourselves?

Of course we have! Having spent almost my entire working life (45 years) In the water quality pollutant control world I can attest to the fact that every polluter (be they municipalities or industry) fights tooth and nail to spend as little as possible to achieve the aims of the federal Clean Water Act.

In fact, they only do so when faced with potential (or imminent) serious legal enforcement action. Were it not for statutory mandates they'd still be dumping raw sewage and toxic industrial waste in our waters like most third world countries.

There is no short term ROI for doing otherwise. And in America, short term is what we're all about.

Be they municipalities or industries...

And individuals as in you and me.
Municipalities and industries do what consumers tell them to and everything they do they do for us. The idea of separating industrial waste from the consumer is completely bogus. What they do, we do.
They make products that we demand. So a paper company dumping waste into a river is the same as me of you doing it. How so? Because none of us are willing to pay more for toilet paper so that they can dispose of the waste properly and still make a profit and overpay their employees.

 

[krusty]

Be they municipalities or industries...

And individuals as in you and me.
Municipalities and industries do what consumers tell them to and everything they do they do for us. The idea of separating industrial waste from the consumer is completely bogus. What they do, we do.
They make products that we demand. So a paper company dumping waste into a river is the same as me of you doing it. How so? Because none of us are willing to pay more for toilet paper so that they can dispose of the waste properly and still make a profit and overpay their employees.

No shit, Sherlock.

 

[Zak]

Have we really done this to ourselves?

Of course we have! Having spent almost my entire working life (45 years) In the water quality pollutant control world I can attest to the fact that every polluter (be they municipalities or industry) fights tooth and nail to spend as little as possible to achieve the aims of the federal Clean Water Act.

In fact, they only do so when faced with potential (or imminent) serious legal enforcement action. Were it not for statutory mandates they'd still be dumping raw sewage and toxic industrial waste in our waters like most third world countries.

There is no short term ROI for doing otherwise. And in America, short term is what we're all about.

too true.

 

[Zak]

Be they municipalities or industries...

And individuals as in you and me.
Municipalities and industries do what consumers tell them to and everything they do they do for us. The idea of separating industrial waste from the consumer is completely bogus. What they do, we do.
They make products that we demand. So a paper company dumping waste into a river is the same as me of you doing it. How so? Because none of us are willing to pay more for toilet paper so that they can dispose of the waste properly and still make a profit and overpay their employees.

I disagree. The scrap metal yard next to a river that discharges metals, solvents, and O&G into the river every time it rains and never even bothered to apply for a CWA discharge permit is not "doing what the consumer tells them to." They are violating federal law in the hopes that no one catches them and brings them to court. The scrap metal yard is not doing it "for us." It sits on tons of copper etc until volatile world spot market prices hit a high note and then unloads the scrap for a big profit. And there is a ton of similar industries.

The pisser is that there are some good industrial actors that take the time and spend the money to comply with the CWA, and those good actors are at a competitive disadvantage to the bad actors if no one prosecutes the bad actors. Thankfully, "any person" can sue a violator of the CWA (so long as that person or a group's members use and enjoy the receiving water).

 

[Rob Allen]

I disagree. The scrap metal yard next to a river that discharges metals, solvents, and O&G into the river every time it rains and never even bothered to apply for a CWA discharge permit is not "doing what the consumer tells them to." They are violating federal law in the hopes that no one catches them and brings them to court. The scrap metal yard is not doing it "for us." It sits on tons of copper etc until volatile world spot market prices hit a high note and then unloads the scrap for a big profit. And there is a ton of similar industries.

The pisser is that there are some good industrial actors that take the time and spend the money to comply with the CWA, and those good actors are at a competitive disadvantage to the bad actors if no one prosecutes the bad actors. Thankfully, "any person" can sue a violator of the CWA (so long as that person or a group's members use and enjoy the receiving water).

Those metals will be used to make consumer goods that you will buy.. Maybe even an EV.

 

[Zak]

Those metals will be used to make consumer goods that you will buy.. Maybe even an EV.

True. But that has no bearing on whether the scrap metal yard complies with the Clean Water Act. The scrap metal yard is doing a calculation: it costs money to comply with the law, if I get caught in non-compliance that will cost me, what should I do? The answer turns on how likely it is that non-compliance will be discovered and punished.

 

[krusty]

True. But that has no bearing on whether the scrap metal yard complies with the Clean Water Act. The scrap metal yard is doing a calculation: it costs money to comply with the law, if I get caught in non-compliance that will cost me, what should I do? The answer turns on how likely it is that non-compliance will be discovered and punished.

EPA's Civil and Criminal Enforcement website provides a continually updated list (with detailed federal court documents) of indictments, consent decrees, penalties, and prison sentences meted out for serious environmental regulatory transgressions. I suspect many of the transgressors had no idea that their greed could land them in so much trouble.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

EPA's Civil and Criminal Enforcement website provides a continually updated list (with detailed federal court documents) of indictments, consent decrees, penalties, and prison sentences handed meted out for serious environmental regulatory transgressions. I suspect many of the transgressors had no idea that their greed could land them in so much trouble.

Agreed, the notion that transgressors skirt environmental laws to decrease end-product price for the consumer is, I suspect, a faulty premise; rather it is a means of increasing profit margin.

Cheers

 

[Rob Allen]

True. But that has no bearing on whether the scrap metal yard complies with the Clean Water Act. The scrap metal yard is doing a calculation: it costs money to comply with the law, if I get caught in non-compliance that will cost me, what should I do? The answer turns on how likely it is that non-compliance will be discovered and punished.

I agree that the scrap yard should keep its place clean.. my only point is that they are in business because we consumers demand their products and as a result we are complicit in their pollution so pointing fingers has a bit of hypocrisy to it.

 

[Zak]

I agree that the scrap yard should keep its place clean.. my only point is that they are in business because we consumers demand their products and as a result we are complicit in their pollution so pointing fingers has a bit of hypocrisy to it.

I get your point, but disagree that we are complicit in the hypothetical scrap yard's unlawful pollution. We the people enacted laws that require permits and BMPs for industry. If a scrap yard blows off complying with those laws, that's on them, not consumers. And it is very unfair to the other scrap yard down the way that took the time and spent the money to comply. Enforcement of CWA makes it a good business decision to comply.

 

[Mossback]

Because none of us are willing to pay more for toilet paper so that they can dispose of the waste properly and still make a profit and overpay their employees.

Lol
Speak for yourself on this.
Plenty of folks are willing to pay more for, and purchase their goods from responsible corporate actors who follow the rules.
Those that skirt the laws and shirk their responsibilities are simply attempting to cheat their way to profits, and are just trying to game the fair market system to their own advantage.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

Lol
Speak for yourself on this.
Plenty of folks are willing to pay more for, and purchase their goods from responsible corporate actors who follow the rules.
Those that skirt the laws and shirk their responsibilities are simply attempting to cheat their way to profits, and are just trying to game the fair market system to their own advantage.

Amen!! If I know a business is breaking environmental laws, or any laws for that matter (eg, labor laws), I take my business elsewhere, even if it costs me more. I am not complicit in their law breaking.

cheers

 

[Evan B]

as for the title of the post: General Discussion is the correct place for any conservation-related post.

 

[FinLuver]

Agreed, the notion that transgressors skirt environmental laws to decrease end-product price for the consumer is, I suspect, a faulty premise; rather it is a means of increasing profit margin.

Cheers

EPA fines are stiffer than OSHA fines…
Interesting that human life is considered less important than the environment.

(Cases/Companies’ violations that I am aware of)