Congress, due to public out cry, stood up and said "yes we care about the environment too, and we're going to do something about it"(I'm paraphrasing of course) so under Nixon they started up a bunch of regulatory agencies including the EPA and passed the Clean Air Act and others. Through all the administrations between Nixon and Obama the congress has had the environment on their minds. Whether they actually cared or simply were doing this out of feeling the political tide turning doesn't really matter, what dose matter is that they were completely unqualified to handle this multi- headed beast and several times refused to listen to the data that was coming in from the researchers. For example The Ocean Dumping Act of 1988, according to Rosenbaum Making Policy: Institutions and Politics after the beaches in New York were contaminated with medical waste and raw sewage there was a public out cry to correct this problem that lead to an impassioned Congress to pass an act that would halt any ocean dumping, however they ignored the experts' testimony that the actual cause was an over flow problem of the dilapidated sewer system and it would take billions to correct it. "... the New York City sewer system is the greatest cause of water pollution in the region. But a sewer system isn't sexy. It's expensive to fix, and nobody wants to hear about it."(the chief engineer of the regional waste management agency, Rosenbaum Making Policy: Institutions and Politics p75). Additionally I question if the people making these decisions are not in effect the fox in the chicken house since several have corporate ties for example Representitive Dingell Head of the House Energy Commerce Committee is the husband of Deborah Insley Dingell, a longtime senior executive at the General Motors Corporation. If I were to site every time the compromise was made between solving the problem and a quick and dirty rubber stamp way of conducting business I would be writing into my aged years. I also can't say I blame them that much because the problems are expensive and highly emotional. So what is an inept government to do? Well perhaps the problem can be examined more meticulously if one was to notice that these problems began with the industrial revolution and have become exacerbated by the continued growth of industry. If we could help to redesign the size of business by having many small companies spread over the whole country we could reestablish ourselves and enter into an era where we are economically supreme with the modern technology to improve and stabilize the environment. By doing this we can redistribute the wealth more evenly. Additionally, environmental regulators could enforce laws more easily by monitoring the company's waste stream and if there is an increase in pollutants such as heavy metals that are poisonous to citizens then the company should be prosecuted for committing a public health hazard.
You point on the slippery slope that exists within the process of using regulation. While regulation seems to be an effective tool at the surface, it drives competition out as many times the costs prove to be too much to comply and thus corporations continue to improve their share within the market. I like your stance on corporations and the question you pose regarding whether or not it is better to have a couple corporations or tons of smaller companies that supply goods while still meeting government regulation. That is a great question and one that I believe many Americans would answer with "corporations" as their response. While not necessarily the correct answer, it is just interesting to think about the American population and their sentiment towards corporations, even after we are exposed to the corporate wrongdoing that is prevalent within our society.
ReplyDeleteThe American fascination with corporations is based in laziness. So may people would rather get an oil change while getting their toilet paper than have jobs. Our complacency is also leading to sub quality so the apathy has no good side effects, just fat and poverty. The job of the individual is to demand high quality, support your neighbors business so they support yours, and stop giving into the shit on the TV and the shit in the drive through. If everyone made that choice then we could begin to see an end to the corporate monster that is ripping our society to pieces.
ReplyDeletewow, martha. that was great. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your entry. I completely agree that people need to stop listening to the ads on t.v. and the philosophy that more (for less) is better. I have had problems with large corporations, and so I have done my best to avoid supporting them whenever possible, but I have never thought about completely ridding them out of our society. Although I think it is a spectacular idea, there would be so many bumps on the road getting to this point, if it would even be possible. How would we ever get to the point in which we only had small companies? And if we did get there, how would they be enforced to not grow? Hypothetically, this is a great idea (which I support 100%), but I feel (fear) that it would never be possible.
ReplyDeleteWhile living without giant corporations would be nice, it's simply unrealistic. And if this is really what you're advocating for, perhaps reconsider your attitude towards Sanders (I realize this post came before the Sanders one). The only way we could affect an economic change of that magnitude (in which we rid ourselves of big corporations and instead rely on local economies) would be to completely restructure the way we view the world. Our culture, essentially, would have to go through a very drastic change. And I think Sanders would agree with what you're saying here for the most part - he just picks up where you leave off. You don't really offer a way that our society is going to GET to this magical plane of existence where people don't want to shop at Walmart anymore, but instead want to drive around town going to 10 shops that sell all of the things they need. Sanders offers us a suggestion.
ReplyDeleteSomething to consider.