4 ms·

This won't change until companies are fined sufficiently to prevent this. More importantly, those responsible must retrospectively face prosecution and jail ti

This won't change until companies are fined sufficiently to prevent this. More importantly, those responsible must retrospectively face prosecution and jail time. A CEO will only care when it's their money and their life that's on the line - they won't care about a large fine 10 years after they've left.

Bellamy 6y ago
Or people stop buying the products.
- vehementi 6y ago
  Systemic solutions are needed. Placing the onus on individuals will fail and this very argument is a distraction injected by the abusers because it will fail.
  - spodek 6y ago
    Systemic change begins with personal transformation. Individuals acting doesn't replace systemic change, it helps create it. You and I acting here and now helps us develop the skills to lead others, including corporations and governments. I agree the person you responded to shouldn't have written "Or", but that doesn't change that individual actions and systemic change aren't exclusive but additive.
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  It should be a crime to saturate the environment and everyone in it with poisons - not something decided by "markets".
  - AntiImperialis2 6y ago
    Except everything is "poison" in a big enough dose if ingested.
sooheon 6y ago
The problem statement is simple: there needs to be lawful accounting for negative externalities, even when discovered after the fact. And the price to pay should be roughly equal to the damage caused by the externality. Solve these two problems and you solve governance and capitalism. As for the implementation...
- ip26 6y ago
  You want to strike a balance between responsible development and paralyzing progress. If potential liabilities are unlimited and you can be held fully responsible for damages no one (including you) understood until decades after the fact, will any new chemical ever be introduced again? Under this regime, even the best, most diligent science with decades of study would not balance your liability. You'd be playing roulette. You need some bar of rigor they aim to clear that confers protection from damages. Whether that's field trials, drug trials, peer review, etc.
  - NullPrefix 6y ago
    >will any new chemical ever be introduced again? You're saying this like it's a bad thing.
    - ip26 6y ago
      You prefer stopping the clock and sticking with our friends glyphosate, PFAS, 6PPD, PBDE, and R-22?
      - sooheon 6y ago
        I want the use of chemicals priced correctly for negative externalities so that I don’t need to prefer one or the other.
  - vagrantJin 6y ago
    I want to agree with this but the article proves that good faith cannot be relied upon and that is endemic to both corporations and the state. A stronger hand might be needed. We need to impress upon corporations to look at the long term condequences and any executive looking to keep living the good life to prioritize environmental/social matters with a high level of awareness and scrutiny before any machinations relating to increasing topline growth (figuring things like this out is why C-Suite execs get paid more than the presidents of most states) To that we need a harsh route and I reckon the need for high profits will apply enough pressure for proper investment in R&D and allows new entrants to get a piece of the pie. Raising the bar will never stop progress -if it did we'd still be boarding some suspect aeroplanes amd driving ridiculous death traps we might call cars.

Bellamy 6y ago

Or people stop buying the products.

vehementi 6y ago
Systemic solutions are needed. Placing the onus on individuals will fail and this very argument is a distraction injected by the abusers because it will fail.
- spodek 6y ago
  Systemic change begins with personal transformation. Individuals acting doesn't replace systemic change, it helps create it. You and I acting here and now helps us develop the skills to lead others, including corporations and governments. I agree the person you responded to shouldn't have written "Or", but that doesn't change that individual actions and systemic change aren't exclusive but additive.
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
It should be a crime to saturate the environment and everyone in it with poisons - not something decided by "markets".
- AntiImperialis2 6y ago
  Except everything is "poison" in a big enough dose if ingested.

sooheon 6y ago

The problem statement is simple: there needs to be lawful accounting for negative externalities, even when discovered after the fact. And the price to pay should be roughly equal to the damage caused by the externality. Solve these two problems and you solve governance and capitalism. As for the implementation...

ip26 6y ago
You want to strike a balance between responsible development and paralyzing progress. If potential liabilities are unlimited and you can be held fully responsible for damages no one (including you) understood until decades after the fact, will any new chemical ever be introduced again? Under this regime, even the best, most diligent science with decades of study would not balance your liability. You'd be playing roulette. You need some bar of rigor they aim to clear that confers protection from damages. Whether that's field trials, drug trials, peer review, etc.
- NullPrefix 6y ago
  >will any new chemical ever be introduced again? You're saying this like it's a bad thing.
  - ip26 6y ago
    You prefer stopping the clock and sticking with our friends glyphosate, PFAS, 6PPD, PBDE, and R-22?
    - sooheon 6y ago
      I want the use of chemicals priced correctly for negative externalities so that I don’t need to prefer one or the other.
- vagrantJin 6y ago
  I want to agree with this but the article proves that good faith cannot be relied upon and that is endemic to both corporations and the state. A stronger hand might be needed. We need to impress upon corporations to look at the long term condequences and any executive looking to keep living the good life to prioritize environmental/social matters with a high level of awareness and scrutiny before any machinations relating to increasing topline growth (figuring things like this out is why C-Suite execs get paid more than the presidents of most states) To that we need a harsh route and I reckon the need for high profits will apply enough pressure for proper investment in R&D and allows new entrants to get a piece of the pie. Raising the bar will never stop progress -if it did we'd still be boarding some suspect aeroplanes amd driving ridiculous death traps we might call cars.