Comments on: From the Editor: What We Can Learn From Bhopal

By: Julie

Julie — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:20:24 +0000

Thanks, Madison!

By: Julie

Julie — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:19:57 +0000

Somchai-

Thanks for your comments. Don’t get me wrong. I WANT to change the corporatocracy and believe we can. But–and I think this is really important–lots of people feel that’s a task that’s somehow beyond their power or reach. That doesn’t excuse any of us from trying, but what I’m advocating is that we all start any social justice and environmental justice action by first looking at/inside ourselves and using that starting point as our frame of reference.

(Report comment)

By: Jim Schwietert

Jim Schwietert — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:58:39 +0000

Jules, excellent article on a subject (corporate responsibility) that needs continued scrutiny. It is a sad truth that too many US corporations will only meet their obligations when pulled kicking and screaming into the court system. While Bhopal was a horrible accident, the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill was an environmental disaster of almost unfathonable magnitude on US (Alaskan) territory. Only this year on the 20th anniversary of this disaster has Exxon finally made some restitution to the thousands of Alaskans adversely affected. Many were fishermen who were put out of business. Exxon refused to pay the original $5 billion judgement and fought this through the courts until the judgement was finally reduced to $500 million. Yes, the Alaskans got 10 cents on the dollar!!!

(Report comment)

By: Abbie

Abbie — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:34:48 +0000

I don’t know why it does surprise me, but I’m still amazed at the carelessness and lack of compassion or real concern for anything or anyone besides making money.

(Report comment)

By: Madison

Madison — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:50:12 +0000

This is a tragedy, but yet not surprising as you mentioned. I wish Americans would take more responsibility for the messes we cause (big or small). Thank you Julie, I love reading your articles and I always feel better informed after reading them!

(Report comment)

By: Somchai

Somchai — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:32:58 +0000

“We can’t, perhaps, change the corporatocracy.”

Why not?

The corporatocracy (without sounding like a conspiracy theorist) not only poisons in Bhopal but also impoverishes here at home, and kills 40,000 a year due to lack of universal health care.

We should manufacture at home using safe sustainable energy efficient methods.

(Report comment)

By: Julie Schwietert

Julie Schwietert — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:10:16 +0000

Eileen-

Thanks for that information. I suspect the lure of operating abroad for these companies isn’t just cheap labor and the ability to avoid the whole not in my backyard argument here at home, but also the ability to operate largely outside the scope of laws to which they’d be subject in the US. Which is pathetic, really, given the kind of information you cite here, as it confirms our laws aren’t stringent enough in this regard.

(Report comment)

By: eileen

eileen — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:09:45 +0000

The main legal result of the Union Carbide disaster as well as an accident in Institute, West Virginia in the United States was the creation of SARA Title III, or EPCRA (The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, EPA info here: http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/epcra/index.htm). It mainly functions to record and divulge information on storage and chemical releases to the environment, with the idea being that people have a right to know what is stored in their communities by a certain sector of manufacturing firms, as defined by SIC code.

EPCRA has no bearing on the cleanup, reparations or any other environmental or social impact, other than good PR for companies whose toxic releases decrease year over year in the TRI (Toxic Release Inventory). Dow Chemical did, in fact, partner with NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) in the 90s for a project to reduce releases and improve their numbers for the TRI which led to reduced reportable emissions at their Midland, Michigan plant (ref: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ilgdow.asp).

But although that’s the lesson the US seems to have learned from accidents such as the ones mentioned above, I like the point the article makes, which is that it’s not enough to inform, warn and respond to the emergency. Instead, the long-standing environmental repercussions must also be the corporation’s responsibility. But until and unless this is mandatory, and not something that can be offset by throwing money (if that) at the problem, the descendants of of those affected by and people who live in the wake of industrial environmental negligence will continue to pay with what is dearest; their health.

(Report comment)