"Gerhard Fiedler" wrote:
> Really? I mean, in a way that releasing more costs more and releasing less
> costs less (therefore creating a natural -- at least in the capitalist
> sense -- incentive to release less)? Do you have some examples where this
> happens? That would be interesting.

Perhaps the most accessibly documented example of a company that has 
historically chosen to pay fines and taxes rather than clean up its 
emissions is Kodak.  The reason follows your point exactly: for decades, it 
has been cheaper for them to do so.  They are beginning to respond to 
pressure to change their ways, however.

>> Lead is nasty stuff and we shouldn't be using it.  It's that simple.

> In principle, yes -- but in reality, there's very little that's not nasty
> when it's concentrated enough. So it's not really that simple.

You're right, especially concerning almost anything metallic.  But lead is 
particularly nasty, and this has been known for a very long time.  This is 
the "simple" part.  My point is that relying purely on economic incentives 
and disincentives was and is, in practice, insufficient to safeguard the 
public from exposure to materials that are known to cause health problems. 
Devising and administering effective economic countermeasures is the 
not-so-simple part.

RR 


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist