Even though the companies will be warned, do you think it would change their behaviour much?
They can’t say they didn’t know, but they still can say they don’t care, or they couldn’t have done otherwise. One of the examples are the sharks that wre getting annoyed or mislead by American navy sonars, and as you said, the navy is most likely to win the case. Companies are already aware of their threat to wildlife in one way or another, and if they do admit, they won’t change it… Financial, economic, and political gain seem to be a priority to ecology, Nature, health…
By: Karine Simonian on October 13, 2008 at 7:27 pm
The main problem with companies today is that they aspire to achieve economic profit regardless of any other possible “side effects”, including their threat to the environment. But I have to say that sometimes this is understandable, after all, profit is not only their main concern, but their only one. And it seems that having this database to warn companies if their activities cause harm or damage to other species is a very important and critical idea (not taking into consideration the extend by which those companies will actually follow the rules).
Actually, as somebody once said: “once the last river is poisoned and the last tree is cut, you’ll find that you can’t eat your money”.
I really hope the right people would start to make the right decisions before we would get to this situation.
Really interesting! Especially for those who are interested…
The only aspect of the story that has a practical impact is the legal one. I would like to know what modifications have the governments brought to their laws, how are those who are harming the environment punished now that this database is put in place??
Sadly, it’s not because people don’t, or are unable to, judge and predict the consequences of their actions that they do what they do. In most cases, it’s the absence of any clear law that encourages them to keep on acting as they are.