---Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Policy certainly can consider the big picture, but ethics has to look at
individual actions. Just because we reduce total pollution does not mean
that those who suffer from the impacts of specific sources of
pollution are
not ethically important. Same as with crime, the total crime rate in
the US
is down, but that does not mean that individual victims are
unimportant. Is
that analagous? I don't know or care, my point is the same; Ethically I
don't think that pollution credits are all that good of an idea. While
the
big goal of pollution reduction may be met, some firms will be allowed
to
continue to pollute as long as they can afford to do so. Like most
economic
solutions to problems, it proposes a single solution to all
situations. The
role of ethics is to say that individual circumstances do count.
----
So some firms should be allowed to pollute?
Actually, I think your reasoning is incorrect for the following
reason. I don't think individuals really care what plant is doing the
polluting. That is I don't think individuals care that they air is
dirty because firm A or B is polluting, but that individuals care that
the air is dirty and they want it reduced (I am assuming that the two
firms produce the same pollution). The reason for this is that when
they go outside they don't see which particles of pollution are
produced by firm A and those that are produced by firm B. When they
take a breath and cough they don't say "Goddamn that firm B. I wish
someone would do something about firm B."
Now when you have different types of pollution be pumped into the air
then it makes very good sense to be concerned about the levels of the
various pollutants and assuming (a very heroic assumption) that some
sort of credit trading program were in place then you might want to
have different amounts of credits for different pollutants. The
reason for instituting such a system is to address the losses by the
individuals so I think you claims that those who suffer the ill
affects of pollution are being ignored is false.
Also, a firm will continue to pollute only so long as the cost of
retooling is greater than the cost of purchasing the credits to
pollute. To coerce the firm to retool obviously imposes a greater
loss on society than the trading scheme does.
Steve
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|