Al Franken Says Allowing Pollution is a "Subsidy"

[Eric J in MN]

To listen to the audio discussed in this article, click below:
Al Franken and David Sirota talk about mercury pollution during March 22, 2005 'The Al Franken Show' radio broadcast


Al Franken said yesterday that companies "have no right to pollute...they should clean up their act."

Allowing pollution is a "subsidy for industry." It's not "free market enterprise" to let companies pollute, it's "giving them money."

The implication is that when a company saves money by polluting instead of upgrading to a cleaner way of manufacturing/transporting, the public pays the price a price in:

decreased health for adults
decreased health for babies
higher health care costs
fewer lands, rivers, and lakes people can enjoy

Al Franken was talking to regular guest David Sirota by phone about Bush's lax regulation of mercury.

Sirota said that top officials at Bush's EPA removed from an EPA report a study-about-mercury-from-the-Harvard School of Public Health.

The Harvard
study said the benefits of tighter mercury regulations were 100 times greater than the EPA report did.

An AP article discusses how Bush's EPA suppressed information on the dangers of mercury pollution, and notes ("EPA Chided for Disregarding Mercury Study," AP via New York Times, Mar. 22, 2005):

The government now advises that high levels of mercury in some fish, including albacore tuna, can pose a hazard for children and for pregnant or nursing women, causing brain and nerve damage.

MORE AT:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_03_23_al_franken_says_that_allowing_pollution_is_a_subsidy_for_the_polluters.asp

[papau]

1. The problem of the Commons - Al has hit the nail on the head!

About time we had radio that spoke to real problems.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[htuttle]

8. Mark?

Mark Luther, is that you?

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Mercury in "SOME" fish?

What? are we suppose to test our fish before we eat it? How the hell do people know how much Mercury they're eating? THEY DON'T. No more fish for us. I LOVE fish! I LOVE Tuna! This really ticks me off. These bastards are destroying our planet. :nuke:

[etherealtruth]

3. As usual Al is "spot on"

[Eric J in MN]

13. Yes, this was good radio (nt)

nt

[LiberalEsto]

4. Al's absolutely right.

Why should we as taxpayers subsidize spill cleanups and the like?

The whole Superfund concept was created to save corporate asses from having to shell out the massive costs of cleaning up horribly polluted sites.

I'm really tired of seeing the government bail out various industries while refusing to force corporations take responsibility for cleaning up after themselves as a "cost of doing business."

This is a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

[rogerashton]

5. That's right.

The economic consequences of allowing pollution are identical to those of subsidy -- overallocation of resources to the subsidized activity, wasting resources that could be better used otherwise. In terms of equity, though, pollution is probably worse -- at least subsidies are somewhat subject to democratic tests.

By the way -- one of the things I learned team-teaching a course on sustainability in the fall is that our watersheds are also contaminated with increasing quantities of hormones, with the result that deformities in the male organs of fish and frogs are increasingly common. These deformities make it impossible for the males to function in reproduction. Think about that one, folks -- you are drinking the same water they are!

[Eric J in MN]

12. In Minnesota, we have frogs with extra legs from

pesticides which run off into lakes.

[rogerashton]

14. But can they make love?

Assuming a lady frog could be attracted to a 3-legged male!

[htuttle]

6. Privatize the profits, socialize the costs

That's the new American way.

Al's right.

[WyLoochka]

9. A "Free Market" per Adam Smith

Is a market in which all costs of doing business are "internalized" ie paid by the businesses as opposed to "externalized" ie paid by taxpayers.

Pollution and environmental clean-up paid for by the taxpayers is a gigantic welfare subsidy to business and is the antithesis of a true "free market."

It is also very anti-competitive (competition being another indispensable characteristic of a Smith defined free market). Externalization of costs shores up existing bad businesses making it extrememly difficult, if not downright impossible, for good businesses which might be inclined to pay their own way to compete.

We do not have anything even close to a "free market" as defined by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. We have the exact opposite.

[Toots]

10. That would be all fine and good if there was a fair playing field

Don't get me wrong, I do not side with polluters of any type but we live in a Global Community with a Global Market. How is it competitive for our companies to spend billions on eliminating pollution when none of the other countries make their companies do like-wise? We need to work toward establishing the same rights for workers in foreign countries as in America but Republicans wouldn't have their "cheap labor" and that drives the Party. Without exploitation the Republicans would not have anything...

[Eric J in MN]

11. I didn't even cover that cleanups are often paid

by the taxpayer, but that is a good point.