I've heard a lot about how the EPA gives out permits to companies that allow them to pollute without the fear of being sued by their neighbors. This is a facinating topic to me because that would mean that not only does the EPA not accomplish what it was established to, it does exactly the opposite.
I haven't been able to find any good citeable sources on this issue, however. It would help for me to know the specific law(s) that prohibit suing these companies. Also any good credible dirt on the EPA would be appreciated.
I might be completely off here, but I imagine these pollution permits are similar to those established by the Kyoto protocol. The idea was that pollution would be "internalised". Except rather than allowing private property to deal with the issue, they instituted an enormous bureaucracy, whereby countries would sell "air" to each other. Essentially, those countries that don't produce anything get money from those that do. Think of it as an elaborate tax. Obviously it also increases costs for producers, who either face bankruptcy (and shortages) or must raise prices. Those that are actually harmed by pollution don't get anything. It's just an elaborate wealth redestribution mechanism from first and second world countries to third world countries.
I think their arguments that private property wouldn't work hinged on stuff like "how do we privatise oceans, lakes, rivers, and the air?". It would be far easier to tackle this issue if we looked at things this way: You don't necessarily own the airspace above your land (how would you homestead it?) but if you are negatively affected by pollution in it, and can trace it back to a particular factory, you can sue them for damages. Same thing with water. You don't need to own a river to be able to sue its polluters if you can prove that you regularly use water from it, that has now suffered due to pollution. This way those that actually suffer get a recompense, and not a corrupt bureaucracy in bed with non-producing countries' governments.
I imagine the EPA does something similar, charging people to allow pollution, except that the government, rather than those that suffer, get the money. I haven't really studied the issue in America though.
Sae:I've heard a lot about how the EPA gives out permits to companies that allow them to pollute without the fear of being sued by their neighbors
Not permits, really, but "limits."
It says you can't pollute more than this much, which in reality is a license to pollute up to that much.
Peace
I think what you're referring to here is the cap and trade system they enacted to rein in acid rain that later became the model for the whole 'carbon credits' fiasco.
Or maybe the fact they set the standard for emissions from factories and whatnot but there is nothing saying they can't be challenged in court for following the EPA standards to the letter as far as I know. I would assume this just gives companies a reasonable defense in cases where people aren't suing for specific instances of harm caused by emitted chemicals but I'm just guessing as I'm not a lawyer.
I am pretty sure the EPA can't hand out blanket immunity for damages caused by a company's activities though.