4 ms·

When a company willingly and knowingly foils rules put in place to increase lifespan and reduce the death toll of cancer due to air pollution, shouldn't these t

by edejong 11y ago

When a company willingly and knowingly foils rules put in place to increase lifespan and reduce the death toll of cancer due to air pollution, shouldn't these top-executives be charged with mass murder? Why can't we compare this with a war crime? Millions of healthy life-span-years could have been lost due to these acts.

pkulak 11y ago
Because most people make decisions with a bit of perspective. Trucks (I'm not talking semis, really anything over 6000 pounds, I think) are still allowed far more emissions than any VW diesel car, and anything built before the new law went into place is still on the road doing it's carcinogenic thing. Any car company is in the business of polluting the hell out of the environment (save Tesla, unless you watch a lot of Fox News). VW polluted a little bit more than they were allowed to for a few years and the executives are "mass murderers"? That's a hell of a president.
- ythl 11y ago
  Even Tesla has a significant environmental impact with its massive Lithium footprint
- edejong 11y ago
  It is likely they have broken rules for far longer (25 years perhaps? [1]). And after we (as in, we the tax payers, who pay for all the health bills) have asked scientifically grounded questions, strict rules were put in place. Rules that deal with life and death... Rules that reflect the severe impact on us, our surroundings, our planet. It can be expected of an academic executive that the basis of these rules lie in extending our (healthy) life span. It can be expected thusly, that the decision of knowingly breaking these rules by 10- to 40-fold, will have cost the lives of thousands world wide [2]. This is not a victimless crime. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-cheating-fuel-tests-25-years/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-ch... [2] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vw-pollution-footprint-20151007-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vw-pollution-footprint...
- Zigurd 11y ago
  The excess deaths can be calculated. So can the ill gotten gains. Why shouldn't the management be made accountable for both?
  - nickff 11y ago
    It is very uncommon for people to be held criminally responsible for so-called 'statistical murder', which is actually quite common. The case has been made that airbags have killed more people than they have saved; should the people who wrote the airbag laws and regulations be put to death?
    - usaphp 11y ago
      While I disagree with the original comment - your airbags analogy does not work here, airbags were not created to work around a law, there is a law on emissions and vw deliberately built a workaround to "comply" with a law on tests, but they knew that outside the test facility their cars would violate that law.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      The airbag case is extremely complicated. There have been multiple technology generations since airbags were introduced. People can misuse their cars by placing small children in the front seats without two-stage airbags. And on top of all that, some airbag inflators were improperly reformulated with a propellant that apparently breaks down and explodes, with deaths attributed to this flaw.
kashkhan 11y ago
millions of lives ARE lost as result of ordinary industrial activity. Also Billions of lives are possible. It's a tradeoff.
- edejong 11y ago
  Yes, but you cannot simply compare the results of industrial activity with the results of breaking rules governing industrial activity. The rules were the trade-off and breaking them breaks the trade-off.
  - kashkhan 11y ago
    The rules have always been for the benefit of industry, not to save lives. The government explicitly shields corporations from liability.
    - edejong 11y ago
      Such a defeatist approach, but I won't argue whose benefit these rules are. Fact is that they are put in place and they help to prevent disease and death. So, now to liability: [1]: "If a corporate officer "authorizes, directs or in some meaningful sense actively participates in the wrongful conduct," personal liability will attach even though the actions were taken by the corporation. " [1] http://www.greenbergglusker.com/news/articles/When-Corporate-Officers-Are-Personally-Liable- http://www.greenbergglusker.com/news/articles/When-Corporate...
      - kashkhan 11y ago
        Identifying the problem is not defeatist. The concentration of power in government makes it attractive to abuse by the powerful and the rich. It is not against the law to pollute the environment, and reduce its future habitability. Companies are not charged for adding CO2 or NOX to the environment. That may change n the future, but right now they do not have to pay the people they harm.
    - btian 11y ago

by edejong 11y ago

pkulak 11y ago

Because most people make decisions with a bit of perspective. Trucks (I'm not talking semis, really anything over 6000 pounds, I think) are still allowed far more emissions than any VW diesel car, and anything built before the new law went into place is still on the road doing it's carcinogenic thing. Any car company is in the business of polluting the hell out of the environment (save Tesla, unless you watch a lot of Fox News). VW polluted a little bit more than they were allowed to for a few years and the executives are "mass murderers"? That's a hell of a president.

ythl 11y ago
Even Tesla has a significant environmental impact with its massive Lithium footprint
edejong 11y ago
It is likely they have broken rules for far longer (25 years perhaps? [1]). And after we (as in, we the tax payers, who pay for all the health bills) have asked scientifically grounded questions, strict rules were put in place. Rules that deal with life and death... Rules that reflect the severe impact on us, our surroundings, our planet. It can be expected of an academic executive that the basis of these rules lie in extending our (healthy) life span. It can be expected thusly, that the decision of knowingly breaking these rules by 10- to 40-fold, will have cost the lives of thousands world wide [2]. This is not a victimless crime. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-cheating-fuel-tests-25-years/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-ch... [2] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vw-pollution-footprint-20151007-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vw-pollution-footprint...
Zigurd 11y ago
The excess deaths can be calculated. So can the ill gotten gains. Why shouldn't the management be made accountable for both?
- nickff 11y ago
  It is very uncommon for people to be held criminally responsible for so-called 'statistical murder', which is actually quite common. The case has been made that airbags have killed more people than they have saved; should the people who wrote the airbag laws and regulations be put to death?
  - usaphp 11y ago
    While I disagree with the original comment - your airbags analogy does not work here, airbags were not created to work around a law, there is a law on emissions and vw deliberately built a workaround to "comply" with a law on tests, but they knew that outside the test facility their cars would violate that law.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    The airbag case is extremely complicated. There have been multiple technology generations since airbags were introduced. People can misuse their cars by placing small children in the front seats without two-stage airbags. And on top of all that, some airbag inflators were improperly reformulated with a propellant that apparently breaks down and explodes, with deaths attributed to this flaw.

kashkhan 11y ago

millions of lives ARE lost as result of ordinary industrial activity. Also Billions of lives are possible. It's a tradeoff.

edejong 11y ago
Yes, but you cannot simply compare the results of industrial activity with the results of breaking rules governing industrial activity. The rules were the trade-off and breaking them breaks the trade-off.
- kashkhan 11y ago
  The rules have always been for the benefit of industry, not to save lives. The government explicitly shields corporations from liability.
  - edejong 11y ago
    Such a defeatist approach, but I won't argue whose benefit these rules are. Fact is that they are put in place and they help to prevent disease and death. So, now to liability: [1]: "If a corporate officer "authorizes, directs or in some meaningful sense actively participates in the wrongful conduct," personal liability will attach even though the actions were taken by the corporation. " [1] http://www.greenbergglusker.com/news/articles/When-Corporate-Officers-Are-Personally-Liable- http://www.greenbergglusker.com/news/articles/When-Corporate...
    - kashkhan 11y ago
      Identifying the problem is not defeatist. The concentration of power in government makes it attractive to abuse by the powerful and the rich. It is not against the law to pollute the environment, and reduce its future habitability. Companies are not charged for adding CO2 or NOX to the environment. That may change n the future, but right now they do not have to pay the people they harm.
  - btian 11y ago