Deck 60: Climate Change

Question 1

Environmental Law
Questions of fairness inevitably arise in regard to environmental law. Has the government gone too far-or not far enough-in regulating businesses in the interest of protecting the environment? At what point do the costs of environmental regulations become too burdensome for society to bear? Consider the problem of toxic waste. Although everybody is in favor of cleaning up America's toxic waste dumps, nobody knows what this task will ultimately cost. Moreover, there is no agreed-on standard as to how clean a site must be before it no longer poses any threat. Must 100 percent of the contamination be removed, or would removal of some lesser amount achieve a reasonable degree of environmental quality?
Concerns over Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water The amount of pharmaceuticals used by the U.S. public and in agriculture (antibiotics and hormones given to livestock) has grown substantially in recent years. Widespread trace amounts of many drugs have been detected in our nation's water supply. The drinking water of at least 41 million Americans in twenty-four regions across the country has been found to contain small amounts of prescription drugs.
Some of these trace amounts came from unmetabolized drugs that had passed through the humans and animals that ingested them, but the rest had been flushed down the toilet. For many years, pharmacists, physicians, and the federal government have recommended that people dispose of unused medications by flushing them away. This prevents children from accidentally ingesting the drugs and keeps controlled substances such as the painkillers oxycodone and morphine from falling into the hands of people who might abuse them. At the time, no one considered the long-term effect on the environment of adding pharmaceuticals to the water supply.
The quantities present in water now are far below medicinal doses, but no one knows how long-term exposure to random combinations of drugs will affect humans or wildlife. As yet, there is little scientific evidence about the long-term effects. The federal government does not require drinking water to be tested for drugs, so Americans do not know whether their drinking water is contaminated. Requiring that water be tested and that all traces of drugs be filtered from it would be enormously expensive.
Legal Reasoning
Should the government wait until there is scientific proof of the harmful effects on humans and wildlife before attempting to regulate pharmaceuticals in drinking water? Or should the government enact legislation to address the problem now- before it becomes worse? Discuss fully.

Answer 1

The quantities present in the water now are far below medicinal doses but no one knows how long term exposure to random combination of drugs will affect humans or wildlife.
As there is little scientific evidence about the long term effects. The federal government does not require drinking water to be tested for drugs, so Americans do not know whether their drinking water is contaminated.
Requiring that water be tested and that all traces of drugs be filtered from it would be enormously expensive.

Question 2

Global Environmental Issues
Pollution does not respect geographic borders. Indeed, one of the reasons that the federal government became involved in environmental protection was that state regulation alone apparently could not solve the problem of air or water pollution. Pollutants generated in one state move in the air and water to other states. Similarly, pollution crosses national borders.
Environmental issues, perhaps more than any others, bring home to everyone the fact that the world today is truly a global community. What one country does or does not do with respect to environmental preservation may be felt by citizens in countries thousands of miles away.
Climate Change. Another challenging-and controversial- issue is potential global climate change. The fear is that emissions, largely from combustion of fossil fuels, will remain in the atmosphere and create a "greenhouse effect" by preventing heat from radiating outward.
Concerns over this issue have led to many attempts to force all world polluters to "clean up their acts." For example, leaders of 187 nations have already agreed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in their respective countries. They did this when they ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which was drawn up at a world summit meeting held in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997.
The Kyoto Protocol, which is often referred to as the global warming treaty, established different rates of reduction in greenhouse emissions for different countries or regions. Most nations, however, including the United States, will not meet the treaty's objectives. Many claim the treaty is not effective because it does not address the problem of curbing greenhouse gases in most of the developing world. Legal Reasoning
Can you think of a better way that the law can address the problem of climate change, which is clearly not just a national issue? Explain.

Answer 2

Reduction of Greenhouse emissions and carbon credit are some of the ways by way of which we can address the problem of climate change.
Green technologies can also be another alternative.

Question 3

Government Regulation
If this text had been written a hundred years ago, it would have had little to say about federal government regulation. Today, in contrast, just about every area of economic activity is regulated by the government. Ethical issues in government regulation arise because regulation, by its very nature, means that some traditional rights and freedoms must be given up to ensure that other rights and freedoms are protected.
Essentially, government regulation brings two ethical principles into conflict. On the one hand, deeply embedded in American culture is the idea that the government should play a limited role in directing our lives. On the other hand, one of the basic functions of government is to protect the welfare of individuals and the environment in which they live.
Ultimately, nearly every law or rule regulating business represents a decision to give up certain rights in order to protect other perceived rights. In this Focus on Ethics feature, we look at some of the ethical aspects of government regulation.
Television Programmers and Antitrust Law
When consumers want cable or satellite television programming, they can choose among various cable and satellite providers, or distributors, but each distributor will offer multichannel packages. In other words, a consumer cannot order just the channels that she or he watches regularly. All of the multichannel packages include some very popular channels and some other channels that have very low viewership. Thus, consumers are forced to pay for some unwanted channels in order to get the ones they do want.
A group of consumers sued NBC Universal, the Walt Disney Company, and other programmers, as well as cable and satellite distributors. The consumers claimed that the defendants, because of their full or partial ownership of broadcast channels and their ownership or control of multiple cable or satellite channels, had a higher degree of market power vis-à-vis all distributors. They also claimed that the programmers had exploited this power by requiring the "bundling" of numerous channels in each multichannel package offered to consumers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed. The court pointed out that the Sherman Act applies to actions that diminish competition and, in this instance, there was still competition among programmers and distributors.
Legal Reasoning
Should TV programmers and distributors be held in violation of the Sherman Act for requiring consumers to buy multichannel packages? Why or why not?

Answer 3

All of the multichannel packages include some very popular channels and some other channels that have very low viewership. Thus consumers are forced to pay for some unwanted channels in order to get the ones they do want.
As per the Court, the Sherman Act applied to actions that diminish competition and in the present case there was still competition among programmers and distributors.

Question 4

Credit Reporting Agencies and "Blacklisting"
Today, some consumer credit reporting agencies will also conduct an online investigation of a person's history of credit disputes and litigation. Physicians and landlords frequently use such services to learn whether prospective patients or tenants have a history of suing their physicians or their landlords.
One service, for example, allows physicians, for a fee, to perform more than two hundred online name searches to find out if a prospective patient was ever a plaintiff in a malpractice suit. Other services available to merchants (such as BadCustomer.com) keep a running tally of customers who have requested a credit-card reversal, called a chargeback, after paying a merchant. Even a single chargeback can cause merchants to reject a consumer's card in the future.
Users say that these services are an ideal way to screen out undesirable patients and applicants, and thereby reduce the risk of being sued. Consumer rights advocates, however, claim that the sale of such information is akin to "blacklisting"-discriminating against potential customers, patients, or tenants on the basis of previous disputes and litigation. These practices have led to complaints of unfairness, as well as lawsuits against reporting agencies. By and large, though, consumers have little recourse unless what is being reported about them is inaccurate.
Privacy Concerns and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Debt-collection practices have often raised privacy concerns. There have been many lawsuits against collection agencies over voice messages or voice mails left by debt collectors. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibits disclosures about a debt to third parties.
Does leaving a voice message regarding a debt collection on an answering machine constitute such a disclosure? That depends on the jurisdiction and the situation. In one case, a Florida court ruled in favor of the debtor. It stated that if a collection agency leaves a voice message for a consumer on an answering machine-even at home-other people (third parties) could hear the message.2 In another case, a federal district court in California held that a debt-collection company had violated the FDCPA by leaving a voice message for the debtor. The message announcing that the debtor had failed to pay his auto insurance was overheard by his mother.
In contrast, a federal court in Minnesota held that leaving voice messages on a debtor's cell phone did not violate the FDCPA, even though the debtor's children listened to them. Because the messages did not identify the debtor or the debt, the court reasoned that "they conveyed no more information than would have been obvious in caller ID." The suit against the debt collector was dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
Do you think that debt collectors should be able to leave voice messages regarding the debt on a debtor's phone? Why or why not? Does the fact that many people today only have cell phones affect your answer? Explain.