Global Warming Poll

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The reason they don't get upgraded is because no company is stupid enough to actually do it because of the liability. If nuclear energy started to become more widespread, that would *hopefully* change.

But the reasoning is legit...it would be like trusting businessmen with the waste water treatment process!

And I have a real problem with people who own/run corporations that they don't keep up to date with the infrastructure, because then it causes all kinds of problems, and guess who gets stuck with the bill to clean it up? that's right, WE do. So how is that in any way capitalism? Hmmmm? They keep the profits, we pay to clean up the mess, and after that they hike up their prices so they make even MORE money, and it's for something they didn't even pay for or have to do themselves. It makes me sick. (doesn't make any sense? I'm kinda out of it this morning.)

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

And I have a real problem with people who own/run corporations that they don't keep up to date with the infrastructure, because then it causes all kinds of problems,

I agree with you but in this situation, most of the corporations that produced parts for nuclear energy have gone out of business and no company want to take over because then they would be responsible for any problems.

They keep the profits, we pay to clean up the mess, and after that they hike up their prices so they make even MORE money, and it's for something they didn't even pay for or have to do themselves. It makes me sick. (doesn't make any sense? I'm kinda out of it this morning.)

That is why strict regulations are needed. If it is more profitable for companies to be as clean as possible, they will be extremely efficient at doing that.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I agree with you but in this situation, most of the corporations that produced parts for nuclear energy have gone out of business and no company want to take over because then they would be responsible for any problems.


That is why strict regulations are needed. If it is more profitable for companies to be as clean as possible, they will be extremely efficient at doing that.

yea, and if we PUNISH them for NOT doing the right thing. And if a company is fined for something, they should NOT be allowed to farm off that expense to their customers, which is what most companies do.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Of course we can teach ethics, and should.

Who defines what is ethical?

Originally Posted by sugarpop

yea, and if we PUNISH them for NOT doing the right thing. And if a company is fined for something, they should NOT be allowed to farm off that expense to their customers, which is what most companies do.

How would you regulate that and who are you proposing should be in charge of that oversite?

It's the same thing with increasing business taxes. They are a cost of producing a product or service and that gets added into the cost the end user pays.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Who defines what is ethical?

In my environmental engineering class, we debated ethics on the basis of how much money is a human life worth. For example, if we find we have a heavy metal in our water but the chances of someone dying is only 1 in 100,000 and would take $30 million to clean up, is it worth it to clean up that water.

So in reality, it is the politicians that define ethics. You scared yet?

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't believe that. Of course we can teach ethics, and should. If people didn't get away with unethical practices in this country then people would be more responsible. But we actually create a culture where unethical practices are encouraged. Why is that?

By the time most people have graduated, most (hopefully) have a general idea of what is good is bad to our society's standards. But, most people will put other priorities ahead of perceived ethics.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

For example, if we find we have a heavy metal in our water but the chances of someone dying is only 1 in 100,000 and would take $30 million to clean up, is it worth it to clean up that water?

Depends on how many people that $30 million is spread across. If it's a community of 50 people, nope. If it's a community of 5 million people, yep.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Who defines what is ethical?

I think most people know what is ethical and what isn't, but in business, most people choose to ignore it.

How would you regulate that and who are you proposing should be in charge of that oversite?

It's the same thing with increasing business taxes. They are a cost of producing a product or service and that gets added into the cost the end user pays.

Baloney. More than half of the corporations in this country don't pay any taxes. ZERO. THAT is wrong. And they STILL charge us more. When Nike moved all of it's factories overseas, did the price of a pair of shoes go down? HELL NO, even though their costs went down drastically and it only cost them a few cents to make them. Some of those people earn something like a dollar a freaking week. Is that ethical? I think not. And I was talking about companies that are charged fines for polluting, or dumping toxic waste, or for other unethical and illegal things for which corporations get fined. They should not be allowed to pass THAT on to their customers, because they are the ones who fucked up. So why should their customers pay their fines? Especially if it is something which people have no choice in using, like power companies or cable companies.