🚀 go-pugleaf

donb@keystone (Don Baccus) writes:

>James N. McClatchey (jnm@saf.com) wrote:

>: Is this really so difficult? The alternative of cleaning everything to
>: background (which is impossible anyway), is not scientific either.

>BTW, I agree that a clean-up protocol based on the best available
>science might well lead to changes in the level of cleanup
>required.  If such decisions were based on sound science, not
>due to the political pressure applied by groups such as this,
>many environmentalists would go along with it.  I'm sure industry
>would be pleased by this and embrace the underlying science.

>On the other hand, thorough scientific review of the current
>approach might lead to the conclusion that many sites should
>be cleaned up very quickly and very thoroughly.  I have a
>suspicion, based on experience with other issues, that industry
>would NOT embrace the underlying science in this case...

>Whatever, this poster's group is an industry pressure group, pure
>and simple.

In a democratic society, there will always be "pressure groups" no
matter what side of the issue you take. I know this is not the place for
a civics lesson, I just say this to point out that industry is a 
stakeholder and must be a part of the dialog. There is always another
side to the issue. I wish you would stay away from the name-calling and
vituperation.

In RCRA, which is a related program, the problem is that there are no
cleanup standards. Subpart S was proposed but never adopted. This has
been conservatively interpreted by many States to require all cleanups
be to background. This is not achievable in many cases and if you found
yourself being forced to spend vast sums of money to cleanup a site to
a point that offered no environmental benefit, would you think you were
being dealt with justly?

As for the justice of CERCLA, retroactivity and joint and several liability are 
unjust on their face.

>: I think the wetlands issue is also foundering on injustice and unfair
>: treatment. 

>Oh really?  Care to be specific?  Please move beyond the laundry
>list of horror stories which are typically trotted out and which
>have been thoroughly debunked so many times.

Sorry, I have only anecdotes :-). Still if there is a "taking" involved,
and if it were your land being taken, would you not feel entitled to
compensation? Otherwise it would be nothing more than legalized theft.
How can this be considered just?

>And if there is injustice based on the enforcement of such laws,
>how does this justify a political solution which rests on
>redefining "wetland" so as to exclude the vast majority of
>wetlands?

I guess we dip into moral philosophy here. Law must be based on justice.
What other basis can there be? I would say to those interested in wetlands
preservation or any other environmental issue that they must come up with
a plan that does not trample on justice. Otherwise, in a democratic society,
the law will ultimately fail. By being perceived as unfair, you invite the
kind of backlash that you are complaining about. If you are truly interested
in environmental protection, you must hold justice and fairness as equal
values to clean air, clean water, and productive land.

Regards - Jim (jnm@saf.com)
-- 
James N. McClatchey (Southern Aluminum Finishing Co, Atlanta, GA, USA)
Architectural Aluminum. Custom Fabrication. Paint, Powder Coating, Anodizing.
jnm@saf.com  Compuserve: 76167,2535  Voice: 404-355-1560 Fax: 404-350-0581