Pollution

[gags]

Some of you might find this case to be interesting:

http://www.envlaw.com/dearborn.html

If you click on "Read the Complaint" you can pull it up in a PDF file. The case involves residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the Rouge Steel complex in Detroit, MI. The steel plant is now owned by the Russian company Severstal, but it was made famous by Ford Motor, Harry Bennett, and the labor violence that took place there during the 1930s. The Rouge Plant is emitting dust and ash that falls on the homes of the residential neighborhoods that are in close proximity.

In Paragraph number 1 of the complaint, they start out by saying that "This is an action necessary to protect the property rights of the Named Plaintiffs....."

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

"Yes, certainly. If you can prove that some person harmed you by his actions then you can sue for damages. If you can only prove that someone in a group of 10 harmed you, you can't collect from any of them."

The issue of how to prove that harm was caused by individual X by the tracking of pollute molecules is a practical one that has not yet been solved. These cases of pollutes as solids (dust, ash, whatever) are minor in comparison to things like nitrates, sulfates, and ozone production at ground level, which do cause real harm to people and their property. Those things, because they disseminate so quickly as gases, cannot be tracked to an individual source.

Hmmm. Hypothetical scenario: Let's say there's someone at a local farmer's market selling Concord grapes. A box of grapes costs about $3.00, and each contains roughly 300 grapes. Someone tastes a grape when the merchant's back is turned. This would be stealing, no? I've actually seen many a person do this in the grocery store, justifying it because the level of cost to the merchant is so tiny. In any case, this particular person feels justified in taking the grape for "free," even though it is clearly stealing.

David, are you saying that even if we can scientifically prove that pollute X is harmful, and if we could track those pollute molecules produced from three hundred different people, that the plaintiff would have no right to sue 300 different people for some level of harm inflicted, setting a total cost and then dividing it according to the proportion of pollutes produced by each? (I'm saying IF this tracking was scientifically possible.) That would be like saying that even if the merchant at the farmer's market could find the 300 people that each took a grape from one of his boxes, thus stealing from him a total of $3.00, that he would have no right to take each to court? Furthermore, even if he cannot track those individuals that stole those grapes, he still knows that a crime has been committed against him because he is missing a whole box of grapes. The fact that he cannot track the individuals does not mean that harm has not been inflicted.

I discussed this scenario with a friend who asked me whether I actually felt guilty by driving my car around and polluting the atmosphere. He probably meant to provoke an answer of "no." But on further thought, I do feel just a twinge of guilt. Rather like that guilt of taking the grape when the merchant's back is turned.

[HaloNoble6]

Permit me to think out loud here. I'm having difficulty with establishing a direct causal link between the production of a few mole of pollutants and any possible harm brought to an individual by way of the penetration of these few moles of pollutants into his person and/or property. It seems to me that the fact that harm comes almost always at the hands of a high concentration of these pollutants ads a level of vaguery to the matter.

Furthermore, I'm not completely convinced that the grape analogy here holds: while taking value, any amount of value, from an individual, by force, is wrong, what value has directly been taken by the penetration of the few moles of pollutants into Jane and/or her property released by John Doe? Ie., where are the facts of reality pointing to the idea that the penetration of a few moles of pollutants, say X, produced and released by John Doe, constitute the taking of value?

Wait a moment; perhaps I'm framing the question wrong. The law should guard against the initiation of force, that is the primary, not the taking of value, which may or may not be a consequence. OK, so, is the basic claim here that the penetration of X moles of blah into Jane Doe, produced by John Doe, consists of the use of force, because Jane never sanctioned or approved of this penetration?

Perhaps the solution is: by choosing to live in such and such area, you are very likely to have the penetration of X moles of blah into you and/or your property, so act accordingly. This begs the question: is it at all sane to demand that such-and-such man-made, airborne substance not penetrate my person and/or property? I mean, would it be proper to demand that no man-made sounds penetrate one's person and/or property if one chooses to live in a big city?

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

You are incorrect in thinking that gaseous pollutants remain localized, my main criticism with all of these legal cases presented. This was my main reason for writing the post!!

And if it can be proved that a certain concentration of gaseous pollutants causes harm to my body or my property, thus violating my right to property or life, then those values have been taken from me. It matters not how many people contributed to the initiation of force, it only matters if I can prove that they did it. If I can prove, they must pay.

I'm no legal expert. I'm arguing on the basis of what would be legal if it were theoretically possible. Obviously there is really no way this sort of case would work in the present because we don't have this scientific capability to track gaseous pollutes.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[HaloNoble6]

So I release 10 moles of CO2 in Syracuse, it will reach Greenland and Chile?

Where does the pollution in L.A. go, China? Perhaps pollution from China is what's in L.A.?

I never meant to imply that pollution is always localized, my dear tree, so perhaps you are incorrect in presuming that I did. I don't think either of the following two claims is credible: 1.) pollution is always localized, 2.) pollution is never localized--I think the answer is contextual, and you're right, we don't have the technology to discover every context on every spot on the Earth. However, my 'solution' still holds in the context of a city where the pollution is obviously localized, like L.A. But perhaps I'm going out on a long, thin tree limb by making this claim?

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Also, that's a bit like saying that because I live on the coastline I should live with the fact that tere is a 25% chance my house will be destroyed by a hurricane in my lifetime. Or because I live in chapparal I should live with the fact that my house might get burned down in a natural wildfire.

Hey, whaddaya gonna do?? That's life, right?

Only in this case, the harm is caused by a set of people, not by some force of nature. Would it make sense to say that because I live in New York City, I should live with the fact that there is a higher probability of being murdered than if I lived in Alaska? I mean, what do you mean by that?

I guess the problem is one of volition, no? Are you trying to say that because people don't know they are doing something harmful that that makes it okay? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to figure out why you would be willing to absolve people of responsibility in this case. I think it's because part of te set of causal links are not there at this present moment in history. But that's my whole point!

[gags]

If we were to focus on auto exhaust for example, it seems that an individual would have a very difficult time rationally claiming that they were harmed by the pollutants coming from any specific vehicle and its driver. Nevertheless, with thousands of cars on the road spewing exhaust in a concentrated area, the air can become difficult to breath pretty quickly. I honestly can't think of how one would solve this problem without resorting to some sort of government control. Maybe the only solution is that you simply don't live in a big city if you don't like air pollution.

With a factory belching smoke, it seems that tracing pollutants to their source would be easier, which should simplify the process of establishing liability. One would still have to demonstrate harm in order to be compensated, but I suppose that could be done by a physician.

What about people with pre-existing conditions like asthma? Is the asthmatic entitled to greater compensation for air pollution than the person with a healthier set of lungs?

[DavidOdden]

Let's say there's someone at a local farmer's market selling Concord grapes. A box of grapes costs about $3.00, and each contains roughly 300 grapes.

I'll check those estimates on Saturday, when the grape arrive. But for the sake of the argument, those are plausible figures so I'll accept tham.

Someone tastes a grape when the merchant's back is turned. This would be stealing, no?

The easy answer is "Yes", the hard answer is "maybe not". Consent is an essential component of stealing -- to steal means to take without consent with the intent of depriving the owner of possession. Then the issue of implied consent rears its ugly head. Technically, if a person comes up to your door to deliver a pizza (and they have the wrong address: it was the neighbor who ordered the pizza) they are trespassing. The same holds for lost strangers who are asking for directions. There is an assumption of implicit permission to enter a person's property -- up to the front door, but not inside, and not around the back, and not when there is an overt sign denying permission such as "No Trespassing". The actual rules for implied consent to access a person's property are determined by the particular society. This applies to snacking in the grocery store as well. I have been told and have gotten the impression that in Norway, there is basically an analogous implied consent regarding produce which obviously applies to the pieces of apple that are cut up and put on a plate, but also apply to a sample grape (but not, I think, a whole rutabaga, an unlikely in-store object of sampling). I think that the general convention here is that if sampling is allowed, there will be a tray of samples, and there is no implied consent to snack (but I also think the convention changed over the past 30 years). Anyhow, that tangent aside let's say that this kind of sampling is indeed theft.

David, are you saying that even if we can scientifically prove that pollute X is harmful, and if we could track those pollute molecules produced from three hundred different people, that the plaintiff would have no right to sue 300 different people for some level of harm inflicted, setting a total cost and then dividing it according to the proportion of pollutes produced by each?

Matt directed me to Summers v. Tice which does make me rethink the hardline proof of causation that I espoused. OTOH while I haven't actually read those articles (Golanski; Fisher; Berger) that he suggested, I can tell you that anything that elimintes causality as the fundamental reasoning behind toxic torts is just plain evil. It is not necessary to prove that benzene molecule number 471, released by Sludgeco, specifically caused Smith's convulsions. What is necessary is to prove that benzene caused the convulsions, that they were not caused by something else, that Smith was exposed to benzene, and that {X,Y,Z} did release benzene into the environment in such a way that it is reasonable to conclude that, for each producer X, Y and Z, the benzene which caused the convulsions could have came from them. As with all matters of law, this does not demand an unreasonable Kantian mathematical proof; it does mean that if Smith was provably exposed to benzene in Miami, he cannot include Sludgeco in the suit if Sludgeco spilled a liter of benzene in Seattle.

That would be like saying that even if the merchant at the farmer's market could find the 300 people that each took a grape from one of his boxes, thus stealing from him a total of $3.00, that he would have no right to take each to court?

If he can prove, in each case, that the accused did steal, then of course he can recover. What he can't do is assess 300 people at random just because they were known to have been at the market.

Furthermore, even if he cannot track those individuals that stole those grapes, he still knows that a crime has been committed against him because he is missing a whole box of grapes. The fact that he cannot track the individuals does not mean that harm has not been inflicted.

That's right: and this is a fundamental reality of harm and recovery. It is also true that the fact that a person has been harmed does not mean that he is entitled to damages no matter what. He knows quite correctly that he was harmed, and he still has no right to my money to compensate him for his bad luck. He only has a right to my money if he can show that I bear specific responsibility. Turning this to something real, store owners in New Orleans suffered significant losses to looters; and the cold, hard fact is that the vast majority of the looters were poor black people. That does not create a right for the store owners to sue all poor black folks because they are part of a "class" that caused harm.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

David, thanks for clarifying. What you said makes sense. Again, the key here is that some sort of tracking would be necessary.

gags: "With a factory belching smoke, it seems that tracing pollutants to their source would be easier."

Actually in the case of smokestacks it makes it worse, because it goes into the upper atmosphere in Michigan and then is rained down on folks in the Adirondacks of New York. People like me. *grumble*

And yes, Felipe, there is an international angle to this. Most certainly.

also i don't really consider CO2 a pollutant. But yes, it will reach Chile or Greenland.

[HaloNoble6]

So then who here is saying we all are morally guilty for the initiation of force (if we know driving our cars initiations force against others)?

[jrs]

So I release 10 moles of CO2 in Syracuse, it will reach Greenland and Chile?

Undoubtedly, it will. Because a mole is about 602,213,670,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. (This number is Avogadro's number.)

So a mole of carbon dioxide weights about 44 grams. And a mole of sulfuric acid weights about 98 grams.

[gags]

gags: "With a factory belching smoke, it seems that tracing pollutants to their source would be easier."

Actually in the case of smokestacks it makes it worse, because it goes into the upper atmosphere in Michigan and then is rained down on folks in the Adirondacks of New York. People like me. *grumble*

Although portions of the smoke reach the upper atmosphere and travel long distances, couldn't the problem be mitigated best by people who are in close proximity to the factory? They would likely bring suit because they've been directly harmed. The neighbors are the ones able to show actual damages and a direct link to the polluter. The folks in the Adirondacks should probably join together and build some of those cool chairs for the people in Michigan. You know, just as a small token of their appreciation.

So then who here is saying we all are morally guilty for the initiation of force (if we know driving our cars initiations force against others)?

I'm not sure that anyone is actually saying that. However, I'd still like to focus on how one solves the problem of multiple small sources of pollution (cars, for example) without government regulation. Perhaps it could be done through class action tort litigation against the vehicle manufacturers. If the people of Los Angeles were to act as a class and sue the vehicle manufacturers because of the smog in their city, would that be a rational means of encouraging the manufacturers to install emission control devices on their vehicles?

On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that emission control devices wouldn't be installed on vehicles absent government regulations. There are so many environmentally conscious people in this country that things like catalitic converters might be an option that the car companies would offer to buyers even if the govt. didn't require such devices.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

I can't get this darn quote thingy to work. Anyway, gags, you said: "Although portions of the smoke reach the upper atmosphere and travel long distances, couldn't the problem be mitigated best by people who are in close proximity to the factory? They would likely bring suit because they've been directly harmed. The neighbors are the ones able to show actual damages and a direct link to the polluter."

But this is the faulty premise I keep harping against, that pollution is localized. This is an assertion, not a fact. HERE are the facts: the smokestacks are raised high so as to put as much into the upper atmosphere and spread it as much as possible so that it won't be localized as toxic breathable gases. So, the problem of poisoning humans is avoided. So that's good. But then this: When those gas molecules get up into the clouds and combine with water they form nitric and sulfuric acids. Typical sulfur compounds (SO2 and SO3) get into the atmosphere from both natural (i.e. volcanoes) and non-natural (i.e., burning of coal, refining of metal ores) sources. Nitrogen compounds also get into the atmosphere and form acids, although the natural sources are much more limited. The biggest non-natural source is buring fossil fuels, especially gasoline. By the time the clouds dump their stuff, it's hundreds of miles away.

I guess the only ultimate answer is for people to be educated and to realize that their actions are potentially harmful, and to limit them. A moral person does not intentionally use force against other people. So, while it may be impossible for someone to catch me using force, does that mean it is moral for me to do so? No.

So I guess what I am saying is that I do think that my driving a car may be an initiation of force. Again, we have no way to know, do we? So in light of that, if I am a rational individual, and do not want to initiate force against others or harm myself, I have to limit my car driving accordingly. Of course, this must be balanced against the benefit to myself in driving my car. (In essence, I guess without thinking very actively about it, I do live my life in this way, now that I analyze my own actions.)

In any case, we are talking about what the ideal solution would be to pollution in an objectivist society, are we not? And in such a society, individuals would be sane, educated, and rational, would they not? And educated, rational people are (hopefully!) moral people and do not want to hurt themsthers.

[Captain Nate]

Just so you all know, I find this discussion fascinating. Environmental laws are interesting from an Objectivist point of view, because it can be argued that excessive polution is the use of force. But if that's the case, how should it be punished?

I suppose a fair and equitable tort law could be written. All though I can see an alternative where the amount of emissions is limited, but that seems improper use of force to me.

[konerko14]

How can you prove in court that a specific type of pollution has caused you physical harm?

Heres an interesting article on the top 10 most polluted cities:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061018/wl_nm/environment_pollution_dc

Edited October 23, 2006 by konerko14

[mweiss]

Proof is a key concept here. A lot of pollution is from a vast number of sources and as such, excepting in situations such as sewage treatment plants, general pollution is hard to trace to specific individuals or businesses. One also has to figure out how to deal with the millions of autos that spew out monoxides, H2SO4 and other pollutants. The fact is, pollution is the fault of our entire society. What are we going to do--sue ourselves?

[konerko14]

Proof is a key concept here. A lot of pollution is from a vast number of sources and as such, excepting in situations such as sewage treatment plants, general pollution is hard to trace to specific individuals or businesses. One also has to figure out how to deal with the millions of autos that spew out monoxides, H2SO4 and other pollutants. The fact is, pollution is the fault of our entire society. What are we going to do--sue ourselves?

So what prevents individuals or companies from making a severely negative impact on the Earth with pollution?

[mweiss]

So what prevents individuals or companies from making a severely negative impact on the Earth with pollution?

As we are all aware, environmental laws are intended to accomplish this. However, those laws are often Draconian in their execution and have all sorts of unintended side-effects.

I think the real answer lies in keeping the population growth low, as a large population puts a strain on available resources such as energy and clean air/water. We have too many people on earth, and unfortunately, the majority are in underdeveloped countries where the procreation rate is limited only by disease and starvation and encouraged by money flowing in from charities.

One thing seems to correlate well: that areas where population is dense, quality of life goes down. Cities are often most polluted, both in particulates, unwanted light and noise, as well as pollution in the water supplies.

[Inspector]

So what prevents individuals or companies from making a severely negative impact on the Earth with pollution?

What is "the Earth?" Do you own this "the Earth?" How can someone "negatively impact" it?

I think the real answer lies in keeping the population growth low, as a large population puts a strain on available resources such as energy and clean air/water. We have too many people on earth, and unfortunately, the majority are in underdeveloped countries where the procreation rate is limited only by disease and starvation and encouraged by money flowing in from charities.

You couldn't be more wrong. There is no rational reason to declare there are too many people on earth.

The fact is that there is far, far too little Capitalism. The population could be many times its current size and people would be living much better off... if there was Captialism.

[konerko14]

What is "the Earth?"

Earth, meaning the planet we live on and the atmosphere that allows life to exist on it.

Do you own this "the Earth?"

No. People can still make life on Earth improbable by polluting though.

How can someone "negatively impact" it?

Certain pollutants can destroy the ozone, cause negative side effects in humans and animals, smog and acid rain, etc.

Edited October 24, 2006 by konerko14

[Inspector]

Certain pollutants can destroy the ozone, cause negative side effects in humans and animals, smog and acid rain, etc.

How does that negatively impact "The Earth?" Your complaint wasn't that there were negative effects on ozone or humans and animals (whose animals?), but that there would be a negative impact on "The Earth." What does this "The Earth" care if there are negative effects on ozone or people or animals?

[konerko14]

How does that negatively impact "The Earth?" Your complaint wasn't that there were negative effects on ozone or humans and animals (whose animals?), but that there would be a negative impact on "The Earth." What does this "The Earth" care if there are negative effects on ozone or people or animals?

Alright, pollution can have severely negative effects on humans and other life forms on Earth.

[Inspector]

Alright, pollution can have severely negative effects on humans and other life forms on Earth.

What other life forms? Do these other life forms posess rights? Are they the property of someone, whose property rights would be violated if those other life forms should come to harm?

[mweiss]

What is "the Earth?" Do you own this "the Earth?" How can someone "negatively impact" it?

You couldn't be more wrong. There is no rational reason to declare there are too many people on earth.

The fact is that there is far, far too little Capitalism. The population could be many times its current size and people would be living much better off... if there was Captialism.

When was the last time you had to drive in heavy traffic? When was the last time you waited in a long line? When was the last time you were told you couldn't do something with your own property because your neighbors voted against you? When was the last time you had to evacuate a town and got stuck for 8 hours in traffic from hundreds of thousands trying to all leave at once?

High population density reduces quality of life. The more people there are, the more our freedoms are restricted, the more pollution we have, the more laws we have.

I doubt whether Capitalism has much to do with solving the problem of numbers. Sure, we can build taller skyscrapers, but the proximity problem still exists. Man is a free spirit. His nature is not to be locked up in cages, stacked upon one another. Man needs space to spread out, do his thing, express himself, move about freely. These things can only happen when the population levels are moderate. Once we start looking like Bombay, India in density, it's not going to be enjoyable living anymore.

[Inspector]

When was the last time you had to drive in heavy traffic? When was the last time you waited in a long line? When was the last time you were told you couldn't do something with your own property because your neighbors voted against you? When was the last time you had to evacuate a town and got stuck for 8 hours in traffic from hundreds of thousands trying to all leave at once?

All problems caused by not enough capacity to handle the given population. This is casued by not enough Capitalism. Capitalism sees a long line and knows there is money to be made. Only an indifferent government looks at congestion and does nothing. You need to seriously check your premises.

Russia had a lower population than us, but had bread lines. Was that caused by "too much population?"

I doubt whether Capitalism has much to do with solving the problem of numbers.

You are completely and utterly wrong. Capitalism has everything to do with it. Under Capitalism, numbers are not a problem but a boon.

The entire population of the earth could fit inside the state of Texas at suburban population density. We are not even remotely close to being crowded. The problem is statism. I suggest reading The Capitalist Manifesto.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Inspector