• HobbitFoot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The problem with using the Love Canal was that it was the local government that really fucked up.

    For the time, Hooker Chemical Company disposed of the chemical waste in a somewhat responsible way; a clay lined canal that they later topped with clay to prevent water infiltration. If the town wasn’t dead set in developing the land, we likely would have never heard of Love Canal.

    • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah that’s immediately what I thought whem reading it. The company did the right thing, it’s the government who wouldn’t listen to reason.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The company did the dumping and then sold it off for $1 for a school to be built upon it. They were held liable. They also created other environmental disasters elsewhere. White Lake Michigan, for instance.

        Hooker Chemical Company gave no fucks, and should not be given tacit approval or any credit.

        • HobbitFoot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Hooker Chemical sold for $1 and a list of conditions because the local government was threatening eminent domain after the company gave several warnings.

          And I’m not going to defend Hooker in other locations.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          They were forced to sell under threat of eminent domain. That’s why they tried to sell it for $1 along with a list of conditions on what it could be used for to highlight the danger. The Government then rejected this offer. Rather than trying to blame some random company just because you think all companies are evil, maybe go and read the history instead.

          • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            More importantly it was the 1950s before the Clean Water Act. Where both entities involved existed under the framework of industry self-regulation that is being directly criticized here.

            The issue isn’t a company or government is responsible: it is that the system of self regulation results in failures with significant collateral damage.

            Regulation also binds government, believe it or not.

            • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              Sure it does, but you were directly trying to blame the company, and not the government that screwed it up. Stop shifting goalposts.

              • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I established they were held legally liable, which they were, in response to a comment that stated the government was the one who fucked up.

                Ain’t no zero-sum binary brained scenario.