Quote:
|
abandoned hazardous waste sites (there are **NONE** in the EU)
|
Really? [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] I remember noticing many likely abandoned sites when I was in London. Guess I was mistaken.
Or you are:
http://www.cfg-lawfirm.com/articles/barnett1.html
Quote:
2. Host nation waste remediation laws.
A 1987 report estimated the United Kingdom and Germany each have 50,000 sites requiring remedial action, Denmark and the Netherlands had 10,000 and 6,000 respectively. National laws include civil and criminal provisions for protection of the environment. As mentioned above, eight (8) EC Member states have signed a Convention imposing non-retroactive, strict, joint and several liability for environmental damages caused by waste. The Dutch program was established in 1982, giving the Dutch Minister of Environment authority to recover cleanup costs from responsible parties. A 1974 law in Belgium holds producers of toxic wastes strictly liable for all damages those wastes may cause, even during final disposal. The NATO Supplementary Agreement regarding forces in Germany, signed in 1959, provides that NATO forces in Germany may apply its own regulations in the fields of "public safety and order" where such standards are equal or higher than those of Germany. German regulators argue this provision requires application of German environmental regulations in some instances.
Criminal protection of the environment became a matter of real concern in Europe in 1978, when the European Community adopted Resolution (77) 28 on the contributions of criminal law to the protection of the environment. The United Kingdom, France and Italy generally do not employ criminal law for the protection of the environment. However, Germany has been more receptive to the use of criminal law for prosecution of environmental violations. After Resolution (77) 28, Germany amended its Penal Code to include a chapter composed of seven articles, entitled "Crimes against the Environment." The mental element is an essential feature of German penal law, and strict liability is inadmissible under the German Constitution.
The nations of Eastern Europe, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, and the nations comprising the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have adopted Constitutions explicitly granting environmental rights.
|
The EU employs no retroactive liability mechanism. The EU generally does not use criminal law to enforce environmental law.
I know of a French company that found out it had contamination on a property here and thought it could just walk away from it or bankrupt the holding company. I had to say, "Nooo, it doesn't work like that here." I know of a Russian company that intended to.... wait, I better not say, it's specific enough you could find out who they are. [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img] I'm also aware of several lead-acid battery facilities, lead smelters, ironworks, and power plants in the EU that absolutely must be contaminated based on historical operations. I'm pretty sure Europe made manufactured gas around the turn of the century as well, and that industry necessarily had to be located in each small area of the countries and tended to leave truly horribly toxic contaminants that "sink" into the ground and then spread through groundwater.
While I appreciate the new law placing the burden of proof of safety on the chemical producers, I note we have similar systems over here under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. RCRA also requires cradle to grave management of hazardous waste (including having to dispose of it at a specially-permitted site) and EPCRA requires you to report every speck of hazardous waste you "release" (i.e. send out for disposal) to the federal government annually by March 1 (I'm helping some clients with this currently). And, most of these laws allow for civil enforcement -- meaning each citizen impacted by breaking environmental laws may step in as "mini attorneys general" and sue the company to enforce the law -- I think in the EU if the regulators turn a blind eye the citizen has no recourse other than tort remedies.
Look, I respect the efforts EU countries have undertaken in the past decades in environmental law. But, you must understand in most respects the US is far more advanced and strict. There are exceptions: for instance, our agriculture industry practices are not as well regulated (though resulting contamination is).
The one problem I have, though, is your statement I quoted above. It's the sort of thing that ruins your credibility, and makes me roll my eyes. It's almost not worth my time telling you how wrong you are.
I wasn't just making shit up. I was relying on what I'd been told by environmental experts from all over Europe I've worked with, including czech regulators, instructurs at the College of Europe, environmental attorneys in London firms, and international environmental law experts I worked for when interning with FIELD in London.
[ 02-20-2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]