Do you think large polluters should be punished?

[donnashuggy]

Is this making it too easy for them?

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=939851&vId=

[acacia_pycnantha]

Punishments for businesses who break the law don't seem to work very well becauce the businesses factor in the cost of the fines and then compare that with how much profit they are making and then they just go ahead and break the law anyway and pay the fines  (if actually caught) because the money they make by breaking the law far exceeds any fines they might pay.

It's a business decision to break the law.

[nevynreally]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Perhaps our  GBR and marine life is in a different category to some than the other native flora and fauna they may advocate strongly for ?

---

Crikey makes a valid argument.

To have prosperity you must have industry.  Industry provides employment and provides revenue for governments via taxes. 

Ideally governments in turn will use those funds to provide infrastructure and services for the population and those socially disadvantaged.

It's up to the industries and the governments to strike a balance between production and pollution.

Penalising industries is not the solution.

Incentivising industry to find better ways of minimising the impact of their waste on the environment is much more constructive.

---

 a carbon trading scheme is the best method. i agree with abbott on that. so do most sensible people, so why did he change his mind ? power is more important to him it seems. kick the drongo out.

---

Taxing the general public is stupid. The average person is trying to cut costs, therefore cutting carbon usage, why did they get slugged? That was rhetorical. It happened because it was easy and it looked good in general. Business being blatant by their usage should have copped the tax. They use it, they pay. What the average household uses barely makes a blot in the big picture.

[izabsmiling]

cya

the concept that a business would be being punished (in a way that matters to businesses ....money)

by having to be responsible for the damage they cause us and our environment is probably one big polluters would like us to believe.The wishy washy suggestions in the OP really do not give much of an incentive for change nor accountabilty for poor business practices which affect us all.

As you said money matters ...if it costs them more to pollute  that is when a large polluter may be more inclined to make the necessary changes .Once the damage is done it may be  too late .Will those driven by money care ? 

Should people pay for damaging our environment ? YES

[izabsmiling]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Committee Decisions 37COM 7B.10 Great Barrier Reef (Australia) (N 154)

8.Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property, including on the implementation of actions outlined above as well as on the other points raised in the 2012 mission report, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014, with a view to considering, in the absence of substantial progress, the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4959

 that updated report is not looking promising imo

---

take your updated report down to centrelink and see how much currency it has there when you need a job or some food or some health care.. or

---

Is that what our PM and QLD's Premier should tell UNESCO ? 

Will that meet their commitments ?