3 ms·

It's not an either or senerio, Jack Daniel's could take some of their profits and spend them on remediation.

Waterluvian 4y ago
Certainly there are many solutions. That’s not in doubt. Companies often don’t like spending money if they don’t have to. Given they haven’t tried to address this for so long suggests as much.
- windthrown 4y ago
  Agreed. To your initial point Jack Daniel's marketing relies so heavily on being "Tennessee Whiskey" I think it would be harder for them than other companies to threaten to move to a state with looser rules (e.g. Boeing in SC). I don't think anyone believes that the company will do this out of the kindness of their hearts but rather are hoping that this attention spurs new regulations. The company basically admits that's what it would take in the article: "Melvin Keebler, general manager of the Jack Daniel Distillery, said in a statement that the company 'complies with all local, state, and federal regulations regarding the design, construction, and permitting of our barrelhouses.'"
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Which means they have enough political support to stop it
- washadjeffmad 4y ago
  In this case, JD will likely withhold changes to their process at least until they can be held non-liable for the costs incurred by the community due to the fungus. It's a shame and defect of our legal system that complying with an accusation arguably constitutes agreement, because it creates the perverse incentive to delay or avoid potentially time-sensitive remediation, with the much broader implication that human caused climate change very much has a bill that responsible parties must foot.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    Agreed. It’s a tricky part of law. In Ontario we have the apology act, which makes it possible to apologize for something without implying fault or guilt. I think that demonstrates how tricky and unfortunate it can be that there’s legal disincentives to do the right thing.

Certainly there are many solutions. That’s not in doubt. Companies often don’t like spending money if they don’t have to. Given they haven’t tried to address this for so long suggests as much.

windthrown 4y ago
Agreed. To your initial point Jack Daniel's marketing relies so heavily on being "Tennessee Whiskey" I think it would be harder for them than other companies to threaten to move to a state with looser rules (e.g. Boeing in SC). I don't think anyone believes that the company will do this out of the kindness of their hearts but rather are hoping that this attention spurs new regulations. The company basically admits that's what it would take in the article: "Melvin Keebler, general manager of the Jack Daniel Distillery, said in a statement that the company 'complies with all local, state, and federal regulations regarding the design, construction, and permitting of our barrelhouses.'"
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Which means they have enough political support to stop it
washadjeffmad 4y ago
In this case, JD will likely withhold changes to their process at least until they can be held non-liable for the costs incurred by the community due to the fungus. It's a shame and defect of our legal system that complying with an accusation arguably constitutes agreement, because it creates the perverse incentive to delay or avoid potentially time-sensitive remediation, with the much broader implication that human caused climate change very much has a bill that responsible parties must foot.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  Agreed. It’s a tricky part of law. In Ontario we have the apology act, which makes it possible to apologize for something without implying fault or guilt. I think that demonstrates how tricky and unfortunate it can be that there’s legal disincentives to do the right thing.