Well there are a couple of things you have stirred me to add TL. Firstly I would like to say that I wasn't actually taking a side in this debate - just pointing out that you guys look to be arguing different points rather than the same one ;) . Secondly I am D2, and a completely different corporeal identity to D1 :D Thirdly I am not exactly sure that we do actually disagree (so I think you may be wrong there ;) ).

Related article:
EU to pass "polluter pays" bill

European Union MPs and governments have agreed to introduce new legislation to make companies pay for the cost of cleaning up the environmental damage they cause. Not all EU countries currently apply the principle that the polluter pays, with legal discrepancies most marked in southern Europe.

However, the Euro MPs failed to convince member states to require companies to take out insurance against environmental damage. Instead, the European Commission is to put forth proposals aimed at setting up a uniform environmental insurance system.

Sorry, mate. Brain thought "X" but fingers typed "Y." At least in my mind I knew which hemishperical "D" you were. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] Actually, by "we" I meant me and Skunk.

Here again, I'd like to highlight a difference. "Polluter pays" is a bedrock theme in environmental law, first established and almost always followed by US Laws. However, the real question is what if the polluter is bankrupt? Or what if the polluter went bankrupt 30 years ago and doesn't exist anymore?

The US law deals with this by imposing strict liability on the current owner, regardless of fault. Yep, you read that right. The notion is that the social benefits of cleaning up the property are so important, it's worth hanging the albatross of cleanup costs around the neck of an INNOCENT party.

Of course, there's also the notionn that if you purchased property without investigating for past contamination, you are NOT innocent. ;) So, this draconian rule does contain an "out." If you thoroughly investigate a property and do not find the past environmental impacts, you can actually get "off the hook," but a good investigation almost always discovers past impacts.

And, what of the current owner being treated unfairly? Well, it ain't all about fairness in environmental law. Now, if the current owner wants he can bring the past operator (the polluter) into the picture and pass the costs on to them (the basic "polluter pays" principle), but where there's no one to "pass the buck" to, tough luck pay up. [img]graemlins/deal.gif[/img]

Anyway, just a further note as to the differences.

Back on topic, the EU has begun sanctions as of today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3521731.stm

although I daresay, it will be a few months before the US job market begins to feel the pinch...

Whereas Airbus gets its "leg up" through a simple government subsidy. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

Just do what they do with Airbus -- subsidize. :D Ooooops, that's not very "PC" in America, is it? It makes it too obvious that it's a governmental handout to business, doesn't it? Corporate tax breaks okay, subsidies no way! Duh, same = same. [img]graemlins/noevil.gif[/img]

How the hell have I got involved in this?

:D

[ 03-01-2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Donut ]

I dragged you in with a clever bait. :D