3 ms·

> Hold companies fiscally responsible for cleanup 3M is filing for bankruptcy due to PFAS litigation, and even then they can't cover the costs [0] This doesn't

by tomxor 3y ago

> Hold companies fiscally responsible for cleanup 3M is filing for bankruptcy due to PFAS litigation, and even then they can't cover the costs [0] This doesn't work, the damage is already done, and the profits have been pocketed. What's worse with PFAS for environmental pollution is that no mechanism for clean up currently exists. > criminally charge the decision makers for cases of negligence. Might work as a weak extrinsic motivator, but there's plenty of "hot potato" going in this kind of work. It's also hard to prove negligence when the "decision makers" are ignoring the environmental costs through either wilful ignorance, burring their own research, or through optimistic interpretations which give them plausible deniability - combine that with shared responsibility and it gets hard to point the finger at individuals unless you were in the room. It's hard to pin down a "decision" of inaction. We either need some kind of intrinsic motivators, i.e make it in the interest of corporations to protect the environment. Or really heavy legislation that requires extensive proof of ecological safety for every new chemical dumped into the environment rather than the current "we'll figure it out later" model. [0] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/3m-heads-to-trial-in-existential-143-billion-pfas-litigation https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/3m-head...

MildRant 3y ago
> 3M is filing for bankruptcy due to PFAS litigation, and even then they can't cover the costs [0] This doesn't work, the damage is already done, and the profits have been pocketed. What's worse with PFAS for environmental pollution is that no mechanism for clean up currently exists. Are you suggesting that 3M should continue to operate as if they didn't poison the world? I'm fine with them being bankrupted by the lawsuits. Let it be a warning for the next company.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  No, he is suggesting that the executives in charge during the production and sale of PFAS products already pocketed their salaries, bonuses, and wealth. It won't be clawed back.
  - fwsgonzo 3y ago
    Some of it can be clawed back in the form of work inside penitentiaries.
- tomxor 3y ago
  No, I'm suggesting that even with the worst possible fiscal punishment (even when it causes bankruptcy) it's still not enough, for two reasons: 1. If the damage done is so severe that it's impossible or impractical to reverse, then even in the case of recovering 100% of the profits ever generated, it still won't be enough to fix the damage. A larger long term environmental cost for the many has been traded for a far far smaller short term financial reward for the few. 2. As the sibling commenter pointed out, companies can be used as a financial liability shield, just pay yourself an absurd salary, keep liquid funds and reinvestment low (especially when the game is up), and all that's left is a functioning but otherwise empty husk.
mrguyorama 3y ago
What about the owners and C level execs, are they reduced to zero personal assets yet? This infatuation with letting rich companies go with a slap on the wrist because of some "prove willful negligence" is silly. Certain actions, including polluting the entire world, should be proof enough on their own. You shouldn't get away with something just because you CHOSE not do enough research beforehand to be aware of dangers. >We either need some kind of intrinsic motivators, i.e make it in the interest of corporations to protect the environment. You do this by deleting any company that shows itself to be poor stewards of the environment, and making sure it really really really hurts, financially, for the ones who profited from it, including high level management. "Just doing my job" shouldn't suffice when your job is overseeing a chemical of unknown danger. When involving yourself in an unethical company means you lose your fortune, the incentives will be aligned. If that means rich people do extensive due diligence before involving themselves in anything, surely that's a good thing right?
- gruez 3y ago
  > What about the owners and C level execs, are they reduced to zero personal assets yet? This infatuation with letting rich companies go with a slap on the wrist because of some "prove willful negligence" is silly. Certain actions, including polluting the entire world, should be proof enough on their own. You shouldn't get away with something just because you CHOSE not do enough research beforehand to be aware of dangers. That seems like a nightmare in from a regulatory compliance point of view. You could do all the required research that the government wants you to do, and still get personally punished a few decades later if it turns out the product was harmful.
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    I don't see a problem with new compounds/techniques/technology in general being forced to comprehensively prove it's utility and safety before being put out in the world.
    - gruez 3y ago
      But what counts as "comprehensively"? The whole point here is that 3M got all the regulatory approvals before launching their product, but it turns out it was too little, so we should punish them anyways. If the law isn't comprehensive enough, it should be made comprehensive. We shouldn't be prosecuting people after the fact for complying with all laws at the time, and then it turned out it wasn't comprehensive enough.

by tomxor 3y ago

MildRant 3y ago

> 3M is filing for bankruptcy due to PFAS litigation, and even then they can't cover the costs [0] This doesn't work, the damage is already done, and the profits have been pocketed. What's worse with PFAS for environmental pollution is that no mechanism for clean up currently exists. Are you suggesting that 3M should continue to operate as if they didn't poison the world? I'm fine with them being bankrupted by the lawsuits. Let it be a warning for the next company.

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
No, he is suggesting that the executives in charge during the production and sale of PFAS products already pocketed their salaries, bonuses, and wealth. It won't be clawed back.
- fwsgonzo 3y ago
  Some of it can be clawed back in the form of work inside penitentiaries.
tomxor 3y ago
No, I'm suggesting that even with the worst possible fiscal punishment (even when it causes bankruptcy) it's still not enough, for two reasons: 1. If the damage done is so severe that it's impossible or impractical to reverse, then even in the case of recovering 100% of the profits ever generated, it still won't be enough to fix the damage. A larger long term environmental cost for the many has been traded for a far far smaller short term financial reward for the few. 2. As the sibling commenter pointed out, companies can be used as a financial liability shield, just pay yourself an absurd salary, keep liquid funds and reinvestment low (especially when the game is up), and all that's left is a functioning but otherwise empty husk.

mrguyorama 3y ago

What about the owners and C level execs, are they reduced to zero personal assets yet? This infatuation with letting rich companies go with a slap on the wrist because of some "prove willful negligence" is silly. Certain actions, including polluting the entire world, should be proof enough on their own. You shouldn't get away with something just because you CHOSE not do enough research beforehand to be aware of dangers. >We either need some kind of intrinsic motivators, i.e make it in the interest of corporations to protect the environment. You do this by deleting any company that shows itself to be poor stewards of the environment, and making sure it really really really hurts, financially, for the ones who profited from it, including high level management. "Just doing my job" shouldn't suffice when your job is overseeing a chemical of unknown danger. When involving yourself in an unethical company means you lose your fortune, the incentives will be aligned. If that means rich people do extensive due diligence before involving themselves in anything, surely that's a good thing right?

gruez 3y ago
> What about the owners and C level execs, are they reduced to zero personal assets yet? This infatuation with letting rich companies go with a slap on the wrist because of some "prove willful negligence" is silly. Certain actions, including polluting the entire world, should be proof enough on their own. You shouldn't get away with something just because you CHOSE not do enough research beforehand to be aware of dangers. That seems like a nightmare in from a regulatory compliance point of view. You could do all the required research that the government wants you to do, and still get personally punished a few decades later if it turns out the product was harmful.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  I don't see a problem with new compounds/techniques/technology in general being forced to comprehensively prove it's utility and safety before being put out in the world.
  - gruez 3y ago
    But what counts as "comprehensively"? The whole point here is that 3M got all the regulatory approvals before launching their product, but it turns out it was too little, so we should punish them anyways. If the law isn't comprehensive enough, it should be made comprehensive. We shouldn't be prosecuting people after the fact for complying with all laws at the time, and then it turned out it wasn't comprehensive enough.