From: Howard Rothenburg
> Then why are the governments that regulate their populations the most the
> ones with the worst environmental problem areas (even where officially
> they have strict environmental protections laws).
> If a company is using an environmental resource it has an incentive to
> protect it, at least enough so it can continue to use it.
> Governments, despite the rhetoric, seem to make the problem worse, the
> more they are involved.
As I would agree with the idea of pretecting your resources for future use,
the specifics of this logic doesn't seem to follow since a government would
seem to have a *greater* stake in the environmental condition of its
territory than would a company. With regard to governments, it is a matter
of priorities. The former Soviet Union and eastern European countries put a
much greater emphesis on economic development than on protecting the
environment. In other situations there is the problem of special interests
within the governments exploiting their position. We also have to remember
that the trouble the United States has been digging itself out from under
was done by primarily by companies government too and of course us with no
or little regulation. Based on the policies made companies or government
can develop good or bad track records on environmental impact. And despite
the rhetoric, for the most part, government regulation has done much more
good than harm.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:31 MDT