Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Tavascarow

Nat Geo, Chemical exposure link to billions health care cost

No surprise, but nice to see an esteemed publication like National Geographic take up the baton.
Rob R

Something that needs a lot more exposure. I hope it will gain pace.
Mistress Rose

Interesting and certainly needs further work. Rather than bury their heads in the sand, I wish chemical companies would work on alternatives (which they may be doing quietly) and see that it is the total dose, not just the dose from one source, and also that the foetus is particularly vulnerable and babies and children can get a higher dose per kg of body weight than adults.
Nick

That's not their job, or responsibility.
Mistress Rose

As it is them that often has to pay compensation, I would have thought self preservation would have been an obvious reason.
Cathryn

That's not their job, or responsibility.


I know exactly what you mean, exactly, but it's time that this statement become disallowed.

Once upon a time it wasn't anybodies job to see domestic violence, now police, nurse, teachers have to make it their job.

And all those chemical companies will have a lovely mission statement that makes it their job.
Tavascarow

As it is them that often has to pay compensation, I would have thought self preservation would have been an obvious reason.

One word. 'Bopal'. never has there been a greater environmental tragedy affecting humans (note humans), the way Union Carbide behaved was criminal & they got away with it.
Greater environmental tragedies are happening all the time but I agree with Nick it's not the companies responsibility.
It's ours to elect representatives who can't be bought & to create legislature that will make them pay for the harm they cause.
Nick

You need to understand that most big business has nothing to do with mission statements. Their responsibility is to make money. They'll try to stay within the law, but if they can't, or it's cheap enough not to, they will budget around it. It's rare that any form of compensation actually comes to much, and it can be written off against tax.

A project will have a budget for breaches, legal costs and contingencies built in. In terms of looking at cumulative affects of multiple compounds, that's an infinite request, so, all they need to do is comply with current legislation, which is set by governments, in consultation with the stakeholders. The biggest of these is big business.

Mission statements are for PR, most of the time, not actually doing.
dpack

As it is them that often has to pay compensation, I would have thought self preservation would have been an obvious reason.
One word. 'Bopal'. never has there been a greater environmental tragedy affecting humans (note humans), the way Union Carbide behaved was criminal & they got away with it.
Greater environmental tragedies are happening all the time but I agree with Nick it's not the companies responsibility.
It's ours to elect representatives who can't be bought & to create legislature that will make them pay for the harm they cause.

where do i start with the list of psychopath corporations and individuals that consider profit or fun more important than any consequence to their victims and as to electing the uncorrectable or incorruptible maybe the electing bit is the problem as the uncorrectable let you do it.
Rob R

In the meantime we need to put money, serious money, into those who don't use such things. Make non-Chen alternatives more profitable & politicians of all shades will start to sit up & take notice. dpack

i might find a pound or so of mine down the back of the sofa but i recon not much more

the "serious"money hedges bets on the psychopathic
Cathryn

You know it's the EU that are debating this in order to provide new regulations?

You lot can be immensely pessimistic. Things do change and improve. New things come up that are pretty horrible but they'll change as well and it may not be what the company's risk analysis covered at the time and it may not have been something they perceived as being their job or responsibility but it can become so, in response to pressures, legislation, society, making less money so they are forced to clean up their act. Maybe EU regulations will help. (I'm fighting hard not to be cynical. Smile )
Rob R

i might find a pound or so of mine down the back of the sofa but i recon not much more

the "serious"money hedges bets on the psychopathic

You've got some pretty serious money locked up in it already, as have I. We just need a few more people to follow suit, little & often.
Mistress Rose

In the past, some companies have had to pay out serious money in compensation. I am thinking things like thalidomide, and asbestos.

I am sure I am not the only person who studied chemisty who has a lively sense of self preservation and tries to work safely and ethically. While big business will always try to push the limits, people within the company can affect the outcome, and often do. Sadly there are always some people who see money and nothing else I suppose.
Rob R

I think we depend upon unethical practise to drive demand for more ethical business. eg horsegate drove demand up for us, but it wasn't lasting. If big business behaved much better it could destroy the USP of small business. Tavascarow

You know it's the EU that are debating this in order to provide new regulations?

You lot can be immensely pessimistic. Things do change and improve. New things come up that are pretty horrible but they'll change as well and it may not be what the company's risk analysis covered at the time and it may not have been something they perceived as being their job or responsibility but it can become so, in response to pressures, legislation, society, making less money so they are forced to clean up their act. Maybe EU regulations will help. (I'm fighting hard not to be cynical. Smile )
EU regulations on air pollution now being negotiated. (Greenpeace report).
Quote:
New rules that were supposed to help tackle deadly air pollution in Europe could result in weaker rules than are currently in place in China (notorious for its poor air quality), a Greenpeace investigation has revealed.
Quote:
The reason these proposed pollution standards are so weak could be the level of influence that the big polluters have had on the process. Our investigation found that the UK is one of the countries that have most aggressively tried to weaken the proposed limits. And we also found that five members of the UKs nine-person delegation to the European negotiations are employees of big polluters, including Big Six coal power plant operators E.ON, RWE and EDF.

In fact, over half the working group members across the EU (183 out of 352) are industry lobbyists. And in dozens of cases, members of staff from coal-burning firms are taking part in the process, not as formal industry representatives, but as government delegates appointed by the member states.
Cynics or realists?
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home