Chapter 18,19 & 20 Flashcards
The issue with current policies’ insufficiency on monitoring Toxic substances
- Current policies, including emissions and effluent standards, aim to control toxic pollution but are insufficient for cases like Love Canal, where prevention and containment measures are inadequate.
*
How can Toxic substances be regulated?
- Challenges in regulating toxic substances due to latency, uncertainty, and economic considerations.
- Latency refers to the delay between exposure and the appearance of health effects, with toxicity categorized as either acute (short-term exposure causing harm) or chronic (harm from prolonged exposure).
- Uncertainty adds to the regulatory difficulty, as laboratory results on animals may not directly apply to humans.
- Some toxic effects are synergistic, meaning their impact can be intensified by other factors (e.g., smoking increasing asbestos-related cancer risk). This uncertainty forces policymakers to act with limited information.
How is Bisphenol A complex to handle?
- Illustrates the complexities of managing toxic risks. Concerns over BPA’s effects on children led to regulatory actions in Canada and voluntary changes in the U.S. market, with companies and states moving to limit BPA use even before federal regulations were enacted.
- Eventually, the U.S. FDA restricted BPA in baby bottles and cups, though not in other products.
What determines the best approach for addressing the issue (policy response)?
and what is the debate around it?
- Depends on the relationship between the contamination source and the affected parties (e.g., employer-employee, producer-consumer)
*The debate revolves around whether market forces or government regulations are more effective in protecting people from hazards, especially in workplaces that involve toxic substances.
When it comes to toxic contamination on workplaces (affecting employees), what are the pro arguments for government regulation?
- Proponents believe that without regulations, employers may prioritize profit over safety, potentially exposing workers to harmful conditions.
- Regulations can ensure that minimum safety standards are met and protect workers who might not have the power or information to demand safer working conditions.
When it comes to toxic contamination on workplaces (affecting employees), what are the pro arguments for market solutions?
- Opponents of regulation argue that market forces can naturally encourage safety improvements. For instance, employers might have to offer higher wages to attract workers to riskier jobs.
- If higher wages are necessary to compensate for increased risks, it creates an incentive for employers to improve safety measures to reduce costs.
How does the risk in hazardous jobs reflect in the wages? What is the debate around it saying?
- Wages in hazardous jobs usually include extra pay, “risk premium,” to compensate workers - danger they face.
- If a job involves higher risks, employers need to offer higher wages to attract workers willing to take those risks.
- Relying solely on this market-based solution has limitations, especially when considering ethical concerns about protecting vulnerable groups.
- Some workers, like pregnant women, may be more susceptible to harm from hazardous conditions. The extra wages - not enough to protect their health or the health of their unborn children.
- The case involving American Cyanamid highlighted these issues. The company banned fertile women from working with a dangerous chemical, lead chromate pigment, to avoid risks to unborn children.
How is market failures and risk interconnected?
- Lack of Information for Employees: Workers may not know about the dangers they face because they don’t have enough information, making it difficult for them to make informed decisions about safety.
- Employers Withholding Information: Employers choose not to disclose certain risks to avoid the costs associated with making the workplace safer or paying higher wages as compensation for dangerous conditions.
- Fear of Liability: Employers may choose to keep hazards hidden to avoid legal repercussions and financial responsibilities that could arise if workers get harmed by those risks.
- Toxic Risk Information as a Public Good: Information about toxic risks is considered a “public good,” meaning that while it benefits everyone, there is often not enough investment in researching these risks or disclosing them because individual companies don’t have a direct financial incentive to do so.
How could the government intervene for making hazardous jobs safer?
- Government intervention, such as “right-to-know” laws, can bridge this gap by mandating that employers disclose potential health risks, label toxic substances, inventory hazardous materials, and train workers.
- “Right-to-know” laws are regulations that give workers the right to be informed about the chemicals and hazardous substances they may be exposed to in their workplace.
- While the government plays a role in setting ethical standards and ensuring information availability, it may not always need to dictate specific safety levels if workers are adequately informed.
Why is the impact of new polluting facilities on neighborhoods and housing markets a significant concern?
- These facilities can cause negative effects on nearby property values and quality of life.
- The study found that properties located closer to polluting facilities saw a notable decline in value, with house prices dropping by around 1.9% for every mile closer to the plant.
- These findings suggest that the presence of polluting facilities makes nearby areas less desirable due to the risks associated with pollution, such as health concerns and environmental degradation.
- Additionally, there is an ongoing debate about whether these types of facilities are more frequently located in minority or low-income neighborhoods, raising questions about environmental justice and equity.
How could polluting facilities be connected to environmental justice?
- The siting of hazardous waste facilities often targets low-income communities due to factors like lower land costs and reduced compensation demands from these communities.
- For facility owners, cost minimization is key, making sites near waste sources and in lower-cost areas more attractive.
- Host communities might accept these facilities if compensated adequately through benefits like jobs or tax revenues, although lower-income areas typically demand less compensation.
- Over time, the presence of such facilities can exacerbate poverty in the area as property values decline, driving higher-income families away and attracting lower-income residents due to cheaper housing.
- Their study revealed that TSDFs were more likely to be sited in low-income, minority areas with higher percentages of Latino and African American residents.
How is market failures connected to information gaps? In the context of environmental justice.
- The economic rationale for targeting low-income communities is linked to lower costs, but the fact that race remains a strong predictor of facility siting points to market failures.
- One hypothesis is that minority communities have less access to information about risks and thus undervalue the dangers.
- Another hypothesis suggests that these communities lack the political power to oppose hazardous facility sitings effectively.
- These factors can lead to inefficient and potentially unfair outcomes in the placement of toxic facilities.
What is the causality concern in the question about environmental justice?
- A persistent question is whether hazardous waste facilities attract low-income and minority populations due to lower land prices, or if these groups move into the area after the facility has been sited because of reduced housing costs.
*Studies like those by Pastor et al. (2001) in Los Angeles suggest that neighborhoods with high minority populations and low incomes were already in place before facilities were sited, supporting the idea that siting decisions may target vulnerable communities.
How does Risk perception influence communities’ opposition to hazardous waste facilities?
- “Not In My Backyard” The phenomenon refers to a social attitude in which individuals or communities oppose the development or siting of undesirable facilities or projects near their homes or neighborhoods, even if they may acknowledge the necessity or benefits of such projects on a broader scale
- Studies on Superfund sites in the U.S. found that delays in cleanup can exacerbate property value declines due to heightened perceptions of risk and public stigma.
- Superfund Sites: These are locations identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as contaminated by hazardous substances and needing cleanup. The Superfund program was created to clean up these sites and mitigate health and environmental risks
How can compensation tools influence communities’ opposition to hazardous waste facilities?
*Compensation to communities hosting hazardous waste facilities aims to internalize the costs associated with environmental risks and provide tangible benefits like jobs and tax revenue.
*While effective in some cases, compensation does not always resolve conflicts or fully address equity concerns.
