If the gov. forced companies to become more eco-friendly, wouldn’t that hurt the economy?

Question

The major complaint by environmentalists is that businesses emit massive amounts of pollution through the elimination of waste, pollution from production itself, and the vehicles they use to transport their products. Sure the government could place restrictions on emission levels, but how would they prevent the economic loss that would cause when the companies can no longer produce as they have been? Please someone lend an idea. Thanks!

Answer 1

we have had environmental restrictions on all business & production facilities for almost 50 years. you wouldnt believe how bad the air & water pollution was in the U.S.in the 60s.

this is why almost everything you buy now is made in other countrys like China that have less restrictive pollution laws.

only 10% of Americans are employed in manufacturing today, because a company that has to spend a great deal of money to meet our restrictive environmental laws cannot compete pricewise with a company in a foreign country that has less restrictive pollution laws.

the clean air & rivers we have now are great but its too bad we had to give up all our manufacturing jobs to get it.

in the 50s & 60s you could go straight from high school graduation to a job in a plant that paid enough to buy a new car with 2 or 3 months pay. now you can only get a job in fast food that takes a year or more to make the price of a new car.

Answer 2

Any pollution is a waste of money.   Light pollution means excess light is going where it isn't needed.   Heat pollution means excess heat is being produced that isn't being used....    If a company can cut down on pollution (waste) it will spend less money making whatever product they make, thus saving money.    I know a heat pump would save me money heating over the long run, but I'm just not able to put out the required capitol at the moment.    If the government required me to get one, i would have to, thus helping myself out over the long run.

Answer 3

Do you mean the US Gov. ? I'll assume you are. IF ? if ? The reason some companies are over seas is that exact reason. Bhopal India is the reason for your question. This would have never happen in the US.

Answer 4

Congress has made it abundently clear that EPA can't enact rules and regulations without a cost/benefit analysis.  If the costs exceed the benefits, business continues as usual.

So if the tree huggers got their way, yes, it would mean the end of the US as we know it.  But that is not going to happen.

A clean environment isn't free, and we pay more for it, but the return on investment is less money spent on healthcare.  (Healthcare is so enormously expensive that quite a bit can be spent on the environment and we would still come out ahead.)

The fuel efficiency standards are on the margin of any cost/benefit, and originally came about because of OPEC, not for any reason of pollution abatement.

The cost/benefit on CO2 regulation is so expensive, basically destroying the entire American economy to prevent some really nebulous future possibilities, that no politician in America wants to touch it.  So business as usual.  Maybe build some nuclear power plants.

The EPA's Toxic Release Inventory showed many businesses how incredibly sloppy they were running their operations, letting valuable materials evaporate into the air and pollute the water.  Stuff that made economic sense to recover.

Tree huggers may want to go back to the stone age, but don't assume business is always rational.  Sometimes you have to hit them over the head with a 2 x 4 to get them to do something in their own self interest.

By the way, you don't see anyone rushing to regulate and/or remove pharmaceuticals from drinking water.

No one in America is going to give up their drugs.

Answer 5

What you are actually seeing is big businesses waking up to the fact that it's more cost effective to do things more sustainably. Walmart is putting solar on their roofs, so are many Silicon Valley companies. Is that cashing in? Solar stocks were one of the hottest sectors in the stock market last year. Google is investing $1 billion for developing alternative energy.

There is a lot of oppurtunity in alternative energy and clean technology. In the long run it will both save money and boost the economy with new economic development.

The REALLY big money is still mostly on the other side of the issue. Oil for instance. Did you know that there are huge hidden costs to our oil addiction? One estimate is over $800 billion a year. Huge oil and gasoline subsidies are a big part of it. Around $100 billion annually for military protection of oil shipments. Hundreds of billions in environmental and health costs. All this would add about $8 to the price of a gallon of gasoline if you paid it at the pump. You still pay it, but it's hidden in the economy and taxpayer money.

And I hear people complaining that the price of gasoline includes 65 cents in taxes or whatever it is. If they only knew.

And then there are all the geopolitical problems with oil, like wars in the mideast.

By comparison, alternative energy is cheap.

When you hear that solar or whatever is too expensive and needs tax credits, they aren't including these hidden costs in the equation.

We already have solar thermal plants that can generate power at prices competitive with gas and coal. 1% of our southwest desert could power the whole country. No hidden costs, no fuel to import, mine, transport, store, or burn.

1% of the Sahara Desert would power the whole world.

Scientific American Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

  With a clean electric grid we could have all electric cars that are charged with clean energy.

So you see, it isn't like we don't have good alternatives. It's the common sense and political will that is lacking.

   It's continuing to do the same thing that is devestatingly expensive.  Unless you're naive enough to believe, that the war in Iraq isn't largely because of oil, then you know what that is costing us in lives and trillions of dollars.

Corporations don't have much trouble selling us stuff.   I wouldn't worry too much.   Our consumerism economy is why, and it is extremely wasteful. Watch this video to see what I mean. "The Story of Stuff"

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

  

If you are worried about the oil companies, they are doing all right.  Exxon just reported $40 billion in 2007 profits.  The top five oil companies reported a combined $123 billion.

And I would like to ask Oracle 2w why he thinks that the cost of everything is always the ultimate determining factor.  I guess in the movie Inconvenient truth where Al Gore holds up the scale, he would choose the bag of gold over the earth.

Answer 6

Right now i live in midland, mi. the Dow chemical plant wraps around the entire city. the smell is atrocious! however the company would rather pay huge fines for emissions. than to reduce them! this tells me the profits are d**n good! BTW for the size of the city, the cancer rate is unbelievably high! that also speaks volumes! also the local medical center has a huge cancer facility, and have one of the only GAMMA KNIVES, a  tool used for brain tumors, this also speaks volumes! I believe they could help the community , and still make huge profits! BTW the whole main river basins runs right through the plant, and has extreme dioxin levels. they said they would clean them 3-4 years ago but have yet to act! people who live on the shoreline have been in court, but they have been going in circles. the yards of these people are dioxin filled! WOULD YOU WANT TO LIVE HERE!! HUGE PROFITS, over peoples lives !!! I personally knew several people that have died from  strange forms of cancer! and 3 dieing of cancer now! BIG-G,,

Answer 7

It would hurt some facets of the economy. Hospitals would not be overcrowded. Laundries would have less to clean. Ecologists, on the other hand, would have more business than they could handle,