Quote:
Originally posted by Thorfinn:
But the provisions are not currently in place, unless you intend to make all people file CAA, SARA, CWW, etc., paperwork, and become listed as hazardous waste generators. Honestly, how many people do you know who don't just toss their old Energizers and Duracells in the trash? Compact flouresccent bulbs have become the largest source of mercury contamination, and they are almost exclusively consumer goods. Consumers are by far the largest emitters of VOCs, whether through their cleaning chemicals, house paint, vents on automobile gas tanks, etc. Factor in all the VOCs involved in getting those products to the consumers, and you find that to a first approximation, all pollution comes from consumers...
|
Doesn't have to be that way. There are "household use" exceptions under all these laws - so, yes, there is a huge consumer loophole. But, if we group plastics and glass separately for recycling, why not do the same with your basic household hazardous wastes - like batteries and Hg-containing materials? I mean, we could do it without it being too onerous. And, most would likely agree it's better than all our income tax gyrations.
Oh, and the auto sources are taken care of via other laws. Several auto emissions have been well addressed, with the few remaining exceptions being, generally, VOCs and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Cleaning chemicals are more tricky, but I assert my 4 oz. jar of ammonia jewelry cleaner, even when taken in the agregate with other consumers, is not nearly as important as the 800 lb. anhydrous ammonia tank one of my clients has sitting on his property, when taken in the aggregate of others like him.
Sure, there are wrinkles in the idea, but I can cite you to some books (some I've read, some still waiting to be read) that likely iron out many of them. Wrinkles don't make the idea bad. Certainly the income tax model is a behemoth in comparrison.