🚀 go-pugleaf

 
In ca.politics alan@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) said: 
 
>Exon probably  
>has line items in its budget to pay for cleanups.  It buys insurance to
pay for  
>cleanups.  It has risk factors and costs.  You may not agree with such  
>assesments but to accuse Exon of not thinking of accidents as >costs is
dumb. 
 
 
Exon definately does pay some minor price for the destruction they have
caused due to spills. I quite honestly believe that they did not pay what
it cost the rest of society. The value that is put on the environment is
too low. We need as a society to value it more. The cost that Exon
externalizes when it comes to air pollution and much of the water pollution
is borne by all of us. When Exon sells gasoline to someone who pollutes my
air, I must pay an increase in the cost to my health. 
 
 
 
> 
>Now this has some merit.  The "cost" here, however, is not the oil
companies.   
>The residents have assigned some value to the scenery.  The oil company
has  
>assigned some value to the oil.  If the residents want to pay for the oil
to  
>keep the scenery then the values (costs) have been assigned equally and
there  
>is no problem.  Buy the oil and leave it in the ground to preserve the
scenery.  
> If the values are different, and the scenery is worth less, what is the  
>problem? 
 
 
Since the environment is of vaue the oil companies should have to pay for
it when they are given the rights to destroy it. I dare say that our
government is very good at selling oil leases and timber rights to
companies at prices well below their value. I'm pretty sure that the U.S.
federal government has given oil companies the right to drill off the coast
(at least they did). The cost should have included the value of the
environment. Since it is my government that owns these rights I think that
I would like a very high price to destroy my environment. However, as we
know, the federal government has been engaging in coporate welfare and
giving away my environment to large multinational corporations at reduced
prices. These corporations in turn sell cheap gas and paper. This tends to
promote waste and excess consumption. This has had an additional effect on
the destruction of the environment. This is an additional cost that must be
born by all of us. I believe I have been ripped off and would like a
rebate. 
 
 
>...  Write checks to  
>the Nature Conservancy and buy the trees. 
 
I agree. Since I value the trees and believe that they are being sold well
under their actual value I think that I will buy them. The trouble is that
I already own them in many cases and my government is selling them too
cheaply. 
 
 
 
 
>...  The people who put a value on scenery should pay for it.  If >no one
cares 
>so be it. 
> 
 
 
I agree. 
 
 
>NO.  Why should the taxpayers of New Jersey pay for California >trees.  If
you  
>want to argue CO2 vs O2, then set up a pollution market, or a carbon
market. 
> 
 
I agree. 
 
>Make them pay market rates for grazing.  Make the timber companies pay
market  
>rates for "public trees". 
>-- 
 
 
I agree. 
 
I think that if properly valued the environment will dominate the free
market. I think that if we stop subsidizing destructive tendancies we will
find that the cost of destruction will cause corporations to change their
tactics to survive. I think that corporations and consumers should pay for
all the consequences of their actions. Much of the costs are externalized.
This is why activities that are destructive to the environment are cheap.
It is because the cost is being passed on to all of us.