|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 3:37 pm Post subject: |
 
|
| cab wrote: |
| Quote: |
I agree it's a heck of a lot easier regulating one large industry than many small ones, but I'm sure Rob and lots of other farmers will tell you that small companies are being targeted just as hard. Its not like the one man bands are being let off.
How environmental regulation would have evolved had not the thinning out of the 'small boys" occured is another argument all together. I'd suggest it would still have occured, just in a different manner. |
Ahh... Heres the crux of the discussion really. Would the emphasis on keeping our rivers clean be possible if we were still seeing lots and lots of little industrial sites each contributing a very small amount to a greater whole? I would maintan that it is unlikely, because each 'little' player would struggle to afford to be clean |
So they'd go out of business (or be swallowed up by other companies) because of need to be clean making them uncompetitive, yeah that's the crux.
| cab wrote: |
| and that the net impact of higher environmental standards would therefore be politically unacceptable; it isn't like agricutlure because, of course, the total number of people working at such sites was relatively large. So the economic and political cost of enforcing better environmental standards would be much greater. |
The main difference being that agriculture was never nationalised, the government have hardly shied away from upsetting the industrial applecart though.
It's a chicken & egg situation, hardly worth wasting thinking time on, as, whichever came first, the present situation is clearly the result of both factors coming into play. |
|
|
|
 |
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
So they'd go out of business (or be swallowed up by other companies) because of need to be clean making them uncompetitive, yeah that's the crux.
|
Potentially making vast numbers of people out of work. Which is, generally, considered a 'bad thing'. So, yes, thats the crux. The political will to do that is hard to come by.
| Quote: |
The main difference being that agriculture was never nationalised, the government have hardly shied away from upsetting the industrial applecart though.
It's a chicken & egg situation, hardly worth wasting thinking time on, as, whichever came first, the present situation is clearly the result of both factors coming into play. |
It is indeed a chicken and egg, but its an interesting question and one thats still important now. I wonder what other stunningly widespread, very environmentally damaging activities there are that we simply don't have the political will to change, and what enforced changes in society will happen anyway to make those changes possible... |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 09 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
| cab wrote: |
| Potentially making vast numbers of people out of work. Which is, generally, considered a 'bad thing'. So, yes, thats the crux. The political will to do that is hard to come by. |
You make it sound like one day there are millions in work & the next they all lose their jobs- legislation (environmental, at least) just isn't like that, it's drip, drip, drip... Groups like farmers, haulage firms, hunters often start their campaigns against the legislation with figures of so many thousand out of work, but because it is gradual & not a mass laying off, the effects aren't so apparent or as easy to associate with one particular new measure. It may not even be 'sacking' that takes place, just retirements without replacement, cutbacks & takeovers rather than closures. For this the political will is there. |
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 09 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
You make it sound like one day there are millions in work & the next they all lose their jobs- legislation (environmental, at least) just isn't like that, it's drip, drip, drip... Groups like farmers, haulage firms, hunters often start their campaigns against the legislation with figures of so many thousand out of work, but because it is gradual & not a mass laying off, the effects aren't so apparent or as easy to associate with one particular new measure. It may not even be 'sacking' that takes place, just retirements without replacement, cutbacks & takeovers rather than closures. For this the political will is there. |
You make it sound like the 1970's and early '80s, with the immense industrial relations problems and toppling governments linked to that, never happened. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
Aeolienne
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1498
Location: Leamington Spa, Warks
|
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
Aeolienne
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1498
Location: Leamington Spa, Warks
|
|
|
|
|
Calli
Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 626
Location: Galway
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
Today that brook is still known as Black Brook even though its crystal clear. Did environmental regulation save this stream or was it the fact that the mine closed because it became uneconomical to extract the coal?
View Latest Posts