"EPA Looking to Change Air Quality Rules"

In the Wednesday, Nov. 19 issue of The Sun News there is an article about the EPA finalizing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, and other major polluters in close proximity to national parks and wilderness areas. Half of the EPA's regional administrators have protested this move in dissention and another four criticized it in writing. The rules that are being changed and weakened are part of the Clean Air Act.

Currently, pollution levels are measured over 3 hour and 24 hour increments in order to capture emission spikes during periods of energy demand. Under the new rules levels would be averaged over a year. Spike pollutions would no longer violate the law.

The EPA regional administrators argue that the switch would undermine critical air quality protection in such places as Virginia's Shenandoah National Park. In the 1930's, visitors to Shenandoah's Skyline Drive could see the Washington Monument 70 miles away. Today visibility on some days is barely one mile. These administrators fear that the new testing will underestimate the emissions both for existing power plants and those that are proposed.

I can understand the importance of building more coal-fired power plants in order to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. BUT, the regulations still need to be followed. They shouldn't be weakened. By weakening the rules it will encourage these power plants and oil refineries to push the limits of the rules. What happens to the responsibility these companies have toward citizens? Does it simply disappear? We've seen this pattern play itself out locally with AVX corporation. If the rules are weakened and these players are allowed to pollute more, then where is the line drawn for other polluters?

"The Automakers Crisis"

If you pick up any newspaper or go to any news website you will find news stories concerning the crisis facing the big three American automakers. They are on the verge of going bankrupt and now are looking for the government to bail them out much like Wall Street has been bailed out. At this point, no decision has been made regarding the automakers and opinions vary as to how to aid them, if at all. Some experts believe they should be allowed to fail, re-organize and learn from their mistakes. Others are of the belief that a bailout is necessary to prevent thousands of people from losing their jobs.

The situation is like a double-edged sword. If these corporations are bailed out with taxpayers' money, they will be less inclined to change procedures and will most likely fail again. If they are allowed to fail, there is a risk that they may not recover. However, it is more than likely that a judge would allow them to file for bankruptcy, settle debts, and reorganize. There is a risk here in that they could very well return to the policies that got them into trouble. What has to happen is that there has to be major compromises and sacrifices made both with union members and management. Automakers can simply no longer afford paying union members what they demand. If union members want a job, then they are going to have to sacrifice some of their luxuries. If they refuse to do that, automakers are going to be forced to relocate to right-to-work states.

This becomes a question of loyalty. Who owes who the most loyalty in this situation?

"Further Info on AVX"

I know I am writing a lot about AVX, but this company is really making a lot of ethical blunders. According to the Nov. 2 issue of the Sun News the partners of JDS Development are suing AVX for ruining their plans to build a 60-unit condominium complex near the AVX facility.

In court papers filed in Federal Court David and Steve Nance state that they had all permits and financing for the project needed to begin construction in Sept. 2007. When the groundwater test was done it showed contamination with TCE thousands of times greater than the federal safe standard set by the EPA. At this point, the bank yanked back their financing and the project was denied because of the contamination. The Nance's were forced to return deposits on pre-sales of the condo units and in turn had no money to pay engineering bills already encountered. The engineering firms have taken the Nance's to court and the property is in foreclosure. The Nance's cannot sell the property. It is worthless. This is an example of how the contamination has frozen real estate sales in the area. Believe it or not, AVX is still not taking responsibility and is blaming the former military base.

Once again AVX is giving us another example of why companies should actually internalize their externalities. It just seems to me that if they would just assume responsibility they would save time, money, and most of all, their image. This situation should be made into a 101 course on how to make sure that one's company is not around for any length of time. Hopefully, at some point, AVX will find their ethical compass and begin heading in the right direction. Here's a hint to them: Just turn around and start walking in the exact opposite direction that you came from.