https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/climate/florences-floodwaters-breach-defenses-at-power-plant-prompting-shutdown.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FHazardous%20and%20Toxic%20Substances&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection
In past centuries, natural disasters came unaccompanied. They happened, caused whatever damages and casualties they would cause, and that was the end. The rebuilding and preparation for the next natural disaster could begin. In the modern day, however, natural disasters bring with them an accomplice, a companion that follows close behind and helps to cause even more problems. All too often, natural disasters bring environmental disasters close behind them. Hurricane Florence recently hit North Carolina and eroded containers of coal ash, a dangerous byproduct of burning coal, as well as lakes of pig feces. These contaminants leaked into the Cape Fear River in massive amounts, something to the tune of two million pounds of ash alone. These environmental disasters often have much longer-term consequences than the natural disasters and take much, much longer to recover from. And unlike with natural disasters, these environmental disasters are of our own doing. Hurricane Florence is not the first hurricane to hit North Carolina, nor is it the strongest by a long shot. This article raises interesting questions on responsibility when it comes to environmental disasters in relation to natural disasters. Certain places are bound to have environmental disasters. Should companies that work with dangerous materials that operate in these at-risk areas be held to a higher standard than similar companies in safer regions? To what extent are consumers of these goods responsible for the environmental damages that might occur? In the same vein, does the government bear responsibility for not ensuring that a company has taken proper precautions, or does the responsibility lie with the company for not following proper procedure?
In past centuries, natural disasters came unaccompanied. They happened, caused whatever damages and casualties they would cause, and that was the end. The rebuilding and preparation for the next natural disaster could begin. In the modern day, however, natural disasters bring with them an accomplice, a companion that follows close behind and helps to cause even more problems. All too often, natural disasters bring environmental disasters close behind them. Hurricane Florence recently hit North Carolina and eroded containers of coal ash, a dangerous byproduct of burning coal, as well as lakes of pig feces. These contaminants leaked into the Cape Fear River in massive amounts, something to the tune of two million pounds of ash alone. These environmental disasters often have much longer-term consequences than the natural disasters and take much, much longer to recover from. And unlike with natural disasters, these environmental disasters are of our own doing. Hurricane Florence is not the first hurricane to hit North Carolina, nor is it the strongest by a long shot. This article raises interesting questions on responsibility when it comes to environmental disasters in relation to natural disasters. Certain places are bound to have environmental disasters. Should companies that work with dangerous materials that operate in these at-risk areas be held to a higher standard than similar companies in safer regions? To what extent are consumers of these goods responsible for the environmental damages that might occur? In the same vein, does the government bear responsibility for not ensuring that a company has taken proper precautions, or does the responsibility lie with the company for not following proper procedure?
This is a very good read and you included a very thought-provoking question of whether or not companies should be held responsible for playing a role in environmental disasters. I think that they should. The loss of profit is incomparable to the loss of human, animal and plant life. I do not think that the consumers of these goods should be held responsible. After all, a lot of consumers to invest in or purchase from these companies have little to no idea of the dangerous materials involved. The government should share the blame for not ensuring that a company has taken the proper precautions as the company had to first go through the government to get a license, which means that the government has formed, in a way, a partnership with the company.
ReplyDeleteI think it is great that you brought up the fact that these disasters now often have larger effects than in the past due to many complications created by humans. I completely believe that these organizations should be held to a higher standard than others, as it is often due to the production of their products that these "environmental disasters" occur. Perhaps it would be best if all companies were held to these standards in order to be more future-minded, though starting with these companies in at-risk areas is a wonderful way to begin. As consumers, we are often equally accountable for the damage that these companies cause, though in a much more indirect manner. The dangers of production in these areas is often known to the consumer, and very little change will be made in the way these organizations operate unless the consumer expresses concern with the methods of production.
ReplyDeleteI agree that companies, working with dangerous materials, in at-risk areas, should adhere to a higher and stricter standard than companies in safer regions. To ensure that the necessary precautions are in place, the government, most likely at the state or local level, should enforce strict building codes and safety precautions, fit for the area. Indeed, the company has the responsibility of following through with these precautions, but the government must enforce and create these specialized policies. In this instance with Duke Energy Plant, the consumer should not be held to the same level of accountability as the company because it is difficult to have complete control one’s main source of power/electricity, and the company and maybe even the government are the true culprits. However, in other instances, the consumer could indirectly responsible from consciously or unconsciously endorsing companies that cause these disasters.
ReplyDeleteI most definitely believe that both companies and the government need to take a more proactive approach to this issue. It should primarily be the companies responsibility to institute the correct precautions and safety measures to avoid these extremely detrimental environmental disasters that could be avoided. Additionally, the measures should be checked and regulated by the government because it is a huge concern to our environment and should not be pushed to the side. This must be a shared responsibility because it is affecting the environment that we all share. There must be stricter regulations and more consequences for failing to adhere to these regulations because the current system clearly has flaws.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental regulations are a very divisive topic. The vast majority of people have one of two diametrically opposed viewpoints: all or none. In my opinion, we should strike a balance. Companies should be the sole responsible party for any potential effects. The consumer should not have to worry about what went into making/acquiring whatever good or service they are purchasing. If a company works with potentially hazardous materials, they should act accordingly. However, the risk there is over regulating; with great ease, a government could create so much litigation that it becomes a nigh impossibility to get anything done. Ideally, the regulations would be strictly enforced, have no consumer involvement, and be easily understood.
ReplyDelete