Rob Robson wrote:

> "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.  

I'm not talking about fines, I'm talking about an adequate price. In this
case, which I don't know, it sounds as if the price (if there was one, but
it doesn't sound like there was a defined price) was too cheap. Or the
general public didn't think it was, then it really wasn't... (I know, it's
not quite as simple as that, but almost. :)


> 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. 

"Economic incentives" is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a
fair and realistic price. The price would include the public cost to clean
up and repair the damage and then some. I don't think this has been
practiced anywhere. Public administrations and legal bodies like pork
(that's what "economic incentives" often are) and hard regulations too
much.

Gerhard

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