Here is an example of the dangers of voluntary regulation, the current administration's fav approach to addressing climate change:
WHEN DuPont agreed to pay more than $100 million last fall to settle a lawsuit contending that its factory near Parkersburg, W. Va., had fouled local supplies of drinking water, some investors hoped to close the book on pollution caused by an important ingredient used in processing Teflon.
DuPont agreed to pay $100 million to settle accusations that its Washington Works plant, on the West Virginia side of the Ohio River, polluted local drinking water.
But that was before a group of scientists advising the Environmental Protection Agency determined earlier this month that the ingredient, perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as PFOA or C8, was a "likely carcinogen," or cancer-causing agent. That finding could compel the E.P.A. to formally regulate the chemical.
It could also complicate DuPont's position in two matters: a criminal investigation into whether it hid tests showing a public health threat, and a class-action suit filed last week on behalf of people who bought Teflon-coated cookware.
There is no hard evidence that Teflon-coated cookware - or any other products that incorporate Teflon, from clothing to cleansers to fast-food packaging - poses the same threat as PFOA. For its part, DuPont has long maintained that there is no evidence that either Teflon or PFOA pose a serious threat.
Still, increased regulation or a successful class-action suit would be a heavy blow to one of DuPont's most successful and profitable businesses. According to the suit, which was filed in several states by two Florida law firms, DuPont nets an estimated $200 million in profit a year from sales of Teflon. The scientific panel's finding could also be bad news for the chemical industry in general if it fuels debate over the use of chemicals in industrial and consumer products, and their potential link to diseases like cancer and to reproductive disorders.
Such concerns have prompted the European Union and Canada to tighten controls on chemical use and labeling. The United States has not taken such steps, in part because the chemical industry offered in the late 1990's to start a voluntary testing program for chemicals produced in volumes of one million pounds or more a year.
This month, the Government Accountability Office criticized the E.P.A.'s ability to ensure that tens of thousands of chemicals in commercial use - and new agents introduced at the rate of about 700 a year - did not pose a health risk. It said the E.P.A., which has used its authority to request health data on fewer than 200 chemicals since 1979, should have more authority.
Here is how it seems to go with voluntary environmental regs: polluters cut back a bit on emissions but not to the optimal level (where benefits - costs are maximized), somebody gets sick, somebody sues, the problem is tied up in the courts forever.
Is this the best way to regulate the environment?
And, go ahead and sell your DuPont stock. It don't sound good.
