Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Flubber
I disagree. The theory is that the damage to neighbors can't occur but for your operation.

Yes, well, Congress should've taken that into account when giving you the permit.

I call bullcrap. IF all possible effects have to be accounted for, you would never do anything. Take oil storage. WE need oil and we need it to be stored so people will need permits. No matter where you put it there can be impacts on someone. An earthquake happens, there is an oil spill and the storage company pays for the damages to adjacent property owners. Simple really.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Years and years of experience. 5% bounds typically the low end. My experience says it is normally much higher.

I would say a cost of 5% on monitoring sounds right. Actually doing things to fix matters costs much more.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Interesting.

I found something on the net that says that environmental regulation is about 2% of GDP. Do you think that's acceptable?

That would probably be right when you consider the vast number of service industries that face little to no environmental regulation. THis might suggest an even higher number than 5% for manufacturing or resource industries

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Any government agency established by the legislature is an extension of the legislature. When Congress establishes, for example, the EPA, and gives it regulatory power, it is delegating its powers to that agency. Anything that agency does, within the limits set by Congress, is essentially a law, subject to the limits of Congressional power but having the same force.

If I accept this . .. so what? You can do things completely within your permits but if your acts cause direct damage to another, you will be liable.

Also in your example, a permit from one government body does not absolve you from meeting the regulatory requirements of that and any other regulatory body

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
That would probably be right when you consider the vast number of service industries that face little to no environmental regulation. THis might suggest an even higher number than 5% for manufacturing or resource industries

Which is good. Services have more value in that they don't create as much polution.

[Flubber]

Addition on gas pipelines.

Most regulated pipelines carry expansion provisions so a new shipper can trigger a process to bring about an expansion if they can show that the tolls for existing shippers will not increase as a result-- Oh and all shippers are supposed to be offered the same shipping rates for a given volume of fixed capacity. Parties can also get smaller amounts on , on an interruptible basis but a major producer needs fixed capacity

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Which is good. Services have more value in that they don't create as much polution.

Interesting concept-- Although a service provider myself, I can easily see we NEED manufacturing, agriculture, oil exploration and production.

That is . . .. unless you want us to all be in equally spacious caves, wearing nothing but animal skins

[Az]

Ok so you use prices, but you just don't pay attention to whether or not people buy at those prices? Don't you want to compare what people are willing to pay to how much it costs to produce the good or service?

I pay attention, however it's not the only think I look at. I factor it in.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Interesting.

I found something on the net that says that environmental regulation is about 2% of GDP. Do you think that's acceptable?

Maybe, but you need consider that manufacturing is not the lion share of GDP. Service sector far outstrips manufacturing.

I'ld be interested in any study that shows it as a function of manufacturing.

edit - xpost with Flubber (Actually just didn't read his response ) But to add to what he syas. The number I quoted at 5% being the lower bounds assumes you have your operationin good shape. For startups plagued with training issues, quality conerns etc. environmental/waste costs can rapidly escalate out of control.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Azazel

Ok so you use prices, but you just don't pay attention to whether or not people buy at those prices? Don't you want to compare what people are willing to pay to how much it costs to produce the good or service?

I pay attention, however it's not the only think I look at. I factor it in.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Maybe, but you need consider that manufacturing is not the lion share of GDP. Service sector far outstrips manufacturing.

I'ld be interested in any study that shows it as a function of manufacturing.

But we pay 2% of our income for cleaner environment. We could get more for our money I'm sure, but I think it's worth it. Manufacturers will make about the same amount of profit as the service providers. Some will go out of business and go into service industry. That's the way the economy is suppose to work.

[Arrian]

We still haven't dealt with the corporate flight problem yet. That's the tough challenge, IMO.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But we pay 2% of our income for cleaner environment. We could get more for our money I'm sure, but I think it's worth it.

If you say so. Believe me if you have to deal with the regs and interpret them most of the cost is not for actual polllution control but moreover the means to limit liability via documentation, reporting etc.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
We still haven't dealt with the corporate flight problem yet. That's the tough challenge, IMO.

-Arrian

Its a tough nut to crack. There are plenty of reasons for corporate flight (lower labor costs, foreign country incentives, proximity to key materials, etc.). My point was giving yet another reason does not IMO seem wise council, especially considering the politically charged issue of high paying manufacturing jobs leaving country.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
If you say so. Believe me if you have to deal with the regs and interpret them most of the cost is not for actual polllution control but moreover the means to limit liability via documentation, reporting etc.

Unfortunately that is part of the cost of pollution control. You just need some of those things, although maybe some of it is unnecessary. You know more about that I'm sure, but you do need to pay people to interpret the regs and do paper work.