Toxic Time Bomb in Elmira

[Acitta]

I am shocked about this. Possibly I had read about it before I moved to the region but I don't remember.
Elmira's Toxic Time Bomb

The link to the video. Toxic Time Bomb by Sheba Films
Free to view for a limited time.

[danbrotherston]

I am shocked about this. Possibly I had read about it before I moved to the region but I don't remember.
Elmira's Toxic Time Bomb

The link to the video. Toxic Time Bomb by Sheba Films
Free to view for a limited time.

I'd not heard of it before I moved here, but I've heard about it on and off since I moved here.

The scale of the disaster is obviously unique, but the outcome is also a bit unique...I haven't watched the video, but I do know the company (even in it's current form) is actively cleaning up the mess. While I'm sure there is discussion about the effectiveness of their efforts, the very fact that they exist makes them unique from so many other instances of chemical contamination in our community.

I don't know what the difference is that makes it so the company is spending money of some amount on actually correcting their environmental harm. I get the sense that holding companies responsible to any degree whatsoever for the harm they create is fairly rare.

From in town, where there is land so contaminated that even across the street from the central transit station, the land value is negative, to the tar sands, to even Lac-Mégantic, corporations which place the risk of harm on the public and are effectively subsidized are the norm, nor the exception.

To drive a car, I must carry insurance to cover the liability of the more or less worst possible case if I make a mistake.  But MMA...the subsidary which operated the train in the Lac-Mégantic disaster was not required to be bonded or insured for a disaster on the scale of the one that occurred. It is now bankrupt and the losses that occurred...while irreplaceable in many cases, will not be compensated for.  The companies which owned and benefitted from the LLC continue to operate, having successfully divested themselves of the risk of operating freight trains carrying dangerous cargo without proper maintenance.

But I guess stronger regulations would just be "red tape".

[Acitta]

I am shocked about this. Possibly I had read about it before I moved to the region but I don't remember.
Elmira's Toxic Time Bomb

The link to the video. Toxic Time Bomb by Sheba Films
Free to view for a limited time.

I'd not heard of it before I moved here, but I've heard about it on and off since I moved here.

The scale of the disaster is obviously unique, but the outcome is also a bit unique...I haven't watched the video, but I do know the company (even in it's current form) is actively cleaning up the mess. While I'm sure there is discussion about the effectiveness of their efforts, the very fact that they exist makes them unique from so many other instances of chemical contamination in our community.

I don't know what the difference is that makes it so the company is spending money of some amount on actually correcting their environmental harm. I get the sense that holding companies responsible to any degree whatsoever for the harm they create is fairly rare.

From in town, where there is land so contaminated that even across the street from the central transit station, the land value is negative, to the tar sands, to even Lac-Mégantic, corporations which place the risk of harm on the public and are effectively subsidized are the norm, nor the exception.

To drive a car, I must carry insurance to cover the liability of the more or less worst possible case if I make a mistake.  But MMA...the subsidary which operated the train in the Lac-Mégantic disaster was not required to be bonded or insured for a disaster on the scale of the one that occurred. It is now bankrupt and the losses that occurred...while irreplaceable in many cases, will not be compensated for.  The companies which owned and benefitted from the LLC continue to operate, having successfully divested themselves of the risk of operating freight trains carrying dangerous cargo without proper maintenance.

But I guess stronger regulations would just be "red tape".

The company is supposedly cleaning it up over a 30 year period while actively trying to get out of the responsibility with legal means. Those who have been activists in this matter think that they have stretched it out in hopes that the activists will die off and everybody else will forget about it.

[ijmorlan]

From in town, where there is land so contaminated that even across the street from the central transit station, the land value is negative, to the tar sands, to even Lac-Mégantic, corporations which place the risk of harm on the public and are effectively subsidized are the norm, nor the exception.

To drive a car, I must carry insurance to cover the liability of the more or less worst possible case if I make a mistake.  But MMA...the subsidary which operated the train in the Lac-Mégantic disaster was not required to be bonded or insured for a disaster on the scale of the one that occurred. It is now bankrupt and the losses that occurred...while irreplaceable in many cases, will not be compensated for.  The companies which owned and benefitted from the LLC continue to operate, having successfully divested themselves of the risk of operating freight trains carrying dangerous cargo without proper maintenance.

But I guess stronger regulations would just be "red tape".

Indeed! It’s interesting that the same people who blather on about free markets and want government subsidies removed from important public services act as if they do not understand that cleanup costs are part of the cost of the outputs of the business. If costs to operate safely mean the business cannot continue, then the business was already bankrupt; any profits are really the proceeds of a fraud perpetrated on all those who are negatively affected by the pollution and other externalities caused by operation of the business.

Fair markets, not “free” markets.

[jamincan]

Mines and quarries in Ontario have to put a certain percentage of revenue (I think that's how it works anyway) into a fund that is supposed to ensure that they are properly rehabilitated at the end. I'm not sure how effective the program is, but there have been efforts to implement policies that address site remediation.

[danbrotherston]

Mines and quarries in Ontario have to put a certain percentage of revenue (I think that's how it works anyway) into a fund that is supposed to ensure that they are properly rehabilitated at the end. I'm not sure how effective the program is, but there have been efforts to implement policies that address site remediation.

Good to know!

It is interesting that those two industries have this requirement...when it is not generally applied.

[danbrotherston]

From in town, where there is land so contaminated that even across the street from the central transit station, the land value is negative, to the tar sands, to even Lac-Mégantic, corporations which place the risk of harm on the public and are effectively subsidized are the norm, nor the exception.

To drive a car, I must carry insurance to cover the liability of the more or less worst possible case if I make a mistake.  But MMA...the subsidary which operated the train in the Lac-Mégantic disaster was not required to be bonded or insured for a disaster on the scale of the one that occurred. It is now bankrupt and the losses that occurred...while irreplaceable in many cases, will not be compensated for.  The companies which owned and benefitted from the LLC continue to operate, having successfully divested themselves of the risk of operating freight trains carrying dangerous cargo without proper maintenance.

But I guess stronger regulations would just be "red tape".

Indeed! It’s interesting that the same people who blather on about free markets and want government subsidies removed from important public services act as if they do not understand that cleanup costs are part of the cost of the outputs of the business. If costs to operate safely mean the business cannot continue, then the business was already bankrupt; any profits are really the proceeds of a fraud perpetrated on all those who are negatively affected by the pollution and other externalities caused by operation of the business.

Fair markets, not “free” markets.

Indeed...this is even seen in consumer products...coca-cola found it was cheaper to produce plastic bottles and then force municipalities/humanity to deal with the resulting waste than to use reusable glass bottles that they had to deal with collecting and reusing.

[ijmorlan]

I should add that in this particular case where there is an existing problem which the occupant is apparently working on cleaning up, policies should be aimed at encouraging them to keep doing so. So, assuming it is verified that the cleanup really is making continual progress, policies re: this site should not be made so much more strict that they decide it makes more sense to abandon it.

For new sites, however, the rule should be that no new toxic sites may be created, and a mix of tracking who is responsible (people, not corporations) and ongoing inspection should ensure that the rule is followed (or, alternately, that our prison population increases).

I’m not generally in favour of threatening draconian prison sentences to try to fix social problems, but I have an idea that rich people respond to that particular incentive and will do anything to stay out of jail, probably up to and including making sure their companies don’t pollute the environment.

[Acitta]

UNIROYAL/LANXESS SHAMEFUL PUMP & TREAT FAILURES OF THE ELMIRA AQUIFERS CONTINUE

https://elmiraadvocate.blogspot.com/2020...treat.html

https://elmiraadvocate.blogspot.com/2020...owing.html


"TOXIC TIME BOMB" IS CREATING SOME BUZZ

[Spokes]

Mines and quarries in Ontario have to put a certain percentage of revenue (I think that's how it works anyway) into a fund that is supposed to ensure that they are properly rehabilitated at the end. I'm not sure how effective the program is, but there have been efforts to implement policies that address site remediation.

I remember hearing that about gold mining up north. That the plot has to be rehabilitated afterwards

[jamincan]

I should clarify after doing a bit of research, the system I was thinking of only applies to operations that are permitted under the Aggregate Resources Act - there is a trust that they pay into. From what I know of mines, there is generally a requirement for a plan for rehabilitation as part of the approvals process, but it's not a centralized system like they have under the Aggregate Resources Act. This makes sense, as mine rehabilitation is generally going to be more expensive and more specific to a given mine's context. As I understand it, a major reason for implementing the system in the Aggregate Resources Act in the 1990s was the large number of unrehabilitated pits and quarries in the province and a way to hopefully sustainable fund their rehabilitation by the industry itself.