US Ruling aginst BC Company for River Cleanup
- Thread starter Rockfish
- Start date
"After eight years of litigation, the company admitted on the eve of a trial last fall that for a century the smelter, operated on the banks of the Columbia in Canada, dumped slag and effluent into the river."
Litigate until it becomes obvious the company can't avoid responsibility and then admit the wrongdoing.
"It's a landmark case that could have implications for mining and other industrial interests on both sides of the border. The Canadian government, the province of British Columbia and the U.S. National Mining Association have all intervened in the case to argue that the issue should be resolved bilaterally. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear Teck's appeal.
Teck argued that the U.S. law that forces companies to clean up contamination sites was never intended to reach across the international border."
This pollution was created in the U.S. so it seems weak to argue that the law wasn't intended to "reach across the border" to a company bases in Canada but operating in the U.S. I can understand the U.S. National Mining Association (an industry group) trying to make that argument but I'm befuddled that both the Canadian and B.C. governments also tried to intervene on the company's behalf. That makes me wonder what Teck is getting away with in B.C. and the rest of Canada and whether you can trust your governments to adequately police Teck's operations in B.C.
Litigate until it becomes obvious the company can't avoid responsibility and then admit the wrongdoing.
"It's a landmark case that could have implications for mining and other industrial interests on both sides of the border. The Canadian government, the province of British Columbia and the U.S. National Mining Association have all intervened in the case to argue that the issue should be resolved bilaterally. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear Teck's appeal.
Teck argued that the U.S. law that forces companies to clean up contamination sites was never intended to reach across the international border."
This pollution was created in the U.S. so it seems weak to argue that the law wasn't intended to "reach across the border" to a company bases in Canada but operating in the U.S. I can understand the U.S. National Mining Association (an industry group) trying to make that argument but I'm befuddled that both the Canadian and B.C. governments also tried to intervene on the company's behalf. That makes me wonder what Teck is getting away with in B.C. and the rest of Canada and whether you can trust your governments to adequately police Teck's operations in B.C.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Seadna, this is the position of every large industrial company in the U.S. and Canada. Environmental practices and ethical values that would not be tolerated in their own countries are routinely flouted in other countries because of weak laws, local corruption, or simply because "no one is looking". Their weak argument stems entirely from that mindset. After all the only duty large industry recognises is that due to the shareholders!!
The Canada/BC Government is entirely composed of politicians who are largely ignorant of the environment and who only look as far forward as the next election. To them jobs are paramount and the environment and future generations do not matter and are entirely beyond their ken. Jobs now always trumps the environment in their view!
With the recent further weakening of environmental laws, Fisheries Act etc. up here by the Harper government you bet we believe "we cannot trust government to police Teck operations"! Such legal instruments as were available to stakeholder groups have been weakened and removed altogether and the playing field has been tilted completely in favour of the large corporation. After all, only jobs now matter!!
steel_dreamin
Member
Seadna, this is the position of every large industrial company in the U.S. and Canada. Environmental practices and ethical values that would not be tolerated in their own countries are routinely flouted in other countries because of weak laws, local corruption, or simply because "no one is looking". Their weak argument stems entirely from that mindset. After all the only duty large industry recognises is that due to the shareholders!!
The Canada/BC Government is entirely composed of politicians who are largely ignorant of the environment and who only look as far forward as the next election. To them jobs are paramount and the environment and future generations do not matter and are entirely beyond their ken. Jobs now always trumps the environment in their view!
With the recent further weakening of environmental laws, Fisheries Act etc. up here by the Harper government you bet we believe "we cannot trust government to police Teck operations"! Such legal instruments as were available to stakeholder groups have been weakened and removed altogether and the playing field has been tilted completely in favour of the large corporation. After all, only jobs now matter!!
I'd love to know what your background is and which advocacy group you belong to.
It's funny that you mention shareholders - by that statement I assume you do all your investing under your mattress? or maybe it's just in "renewable" energy...
tincan
Well-Known Member
Are you implying that you are fine with the following:
"for decades Teck's leadership knew its slag and effluent flowed from Trail downstream and are now found in Lake Roosevelt, but nonetheless Teck continued discharging wastes into the Columbia River."
Suko noted an admission from the company that it "had been treating Lake Roosevelt as a 'free,' 'convenient' disposal facility for its wastes." Suko found that from 1930 to 1995, Teck intentionally discharged at least 9.97 million tons of slag that included heavy metals such as lead, mercury, zinc and arsenic. The company submitted a remediation plan to Environment Canada in late October to deal with decades-old toxins that have seeped into the groundwater from its smelter in British Columbia.
One doesn't need to belong to an advocacy group in order to realize that companies without sufficient regulation will damage our environment if it's good for their bottom line. Businesses that operate with these negative externalities (oil, gas, mining, manucaturing, etc) have been having a free ride for too long and if they were made to pay for these negative externalities then investors would not find them to be such desirable holdings. Cut the subsidies and pay for the damage you do to the environment in order to make it a level playing field.
"for decades Teck's leadership knew its slag and effluent flowed from Trail downstream and are now found in Lake Roosevelt, but nonetheless Teck continued discharging wastes into the Columbia River."
Suko noted an admission from the company that it "had been treating Lake Roosevelt as a 'free,' 'convenient' disposal facility for its wastes." Suko found that from 1930 to 1995, Teck intentionally discharged at least 9.97 million tons of slag that included heavy metals such as lead, mercury, zinc and arsenic. The company submitted a remediation plan to Environment Canada in late October to deal with decades-old toxins that have seeped into the groundwater from its smelter in British Columbia.
One doesn't need to belong to an advocacy group in order to realize that companies without sufficient regulation will damage our environment if it's good for their bottom line. Businesses that operate with these negative externalities (oil, gas, mining, manucaturing, etc) have been having a free ride for too long and if they were made to pay for these negative externalities then investors would not find them to be such desirable holdings. Cut the subsidies and pay for the damage you do to the environment in order to make it a level playing field.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Steel,
If you have read my posts on other threads you will see I advocate strongly against open net pen salmon feed lots, Bill C-38, the so-called omnibus bill which gutted the Fisheries Protection Act, the destruction of the Navigable Waters Act, the China Free Trade agreement (FIPA) and the Northern gateway pipeline. My position on those has been made clear elsewhere. I also happen to think Teck dumping heavy metals into the Columbia River for more than half a century is a criminal offence, and the court appears to have agreed.
Do you think Teck dumping is a good thing, and if so why?
As to investments it is hard for a “Joe Average” like me to track where mutual funds are investing, especially since they buy and sell all the time, but with a bit of effort it can be done. I located all my funds which invested in Enbridge and their cronies some time ago and dumped them all. I also wrote a letter to the fund managers explaining why I was doing it. And yes, as it happens I do have some investments in alternative energy funds as well.
Having said all that, am I pure as the driven snow and completely without “environmental sin”? Of course not! But in my little way I make efforts to keep my hands out of the pockets of future generations when I can, and reduce the environmental debt that we are leaving for them to clean up or suffer the consequences of.
What do you do Steel?
Similar threads
