10-02-2009, 12:57 PM
Quote:I mean both. We citizens need to take ownership for what happens within the community, county, state, geography that we govern. But, whereas we can hold the polluter accountable, we should and when we are held accountable, then we would have the incentive to hold the actual polluter accountable. If it hits your bottom line, then you will be motivated to 1) prevent anyone from despoiling the land you govern, and 2) be more sensitive to despoiling other peoples land, and 3) willing to hold those responsible to account.I think you're underestimating the problem of diluted incentives. If company X pollutes 5 million dollars worth, and they get fined 5 million dollars for it, then they have a very good reason to cut down on their pollution - a dollar for every dollar of externality.
If, on the other hand, company X pollutes 5 million dollars, and a million citizens Y share the bill, they each pay 5 bucks - not enough incentive to get me to work for an hour, let alone organize a citizen movement to hold polluters responsible. Even if I am totally successful, I still only save the cost of a happy meal. Meanwhile, the 5 million the polluters don't have to pay is probably going to lobbyists, whose job it is to neutralize whatever citizen outrage is left.
Citizens already suffer the consequences of pollution, although perhaps unequally. What is necessary is a system to keep the pollution from happening, since cleanup is usually more expensive than the savings of polluting. I say, lay it at the door of industry. It's the most efficient place to do so, and keeps the incentives in the right place.
It's not just whether it hits your bottom line. It's how hard it hits.
-Jester