SteveStallings Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Much attention has been drawn to the pollution and other environmental hazards that are on the rise these days. Prevention and control of these have become the need of the hour. Many laws and rules have been adopted and implemented in a view to control this. A few of them are the REACH, RoHS, WEEE directives, etc. [/url]environmental compliance refers to abiding by these environmental laws and rules. These laws govern the use of toxic substances and the wastes that are generated from the electrical and electronic wastes. The use of some substances such as lead, mercury, cadmium, etc is banned completely by certain laws such as the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive. Other laws such as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, focuses on the collection of e-wastes by the manufacturers, its recycling and reuse. Directives like the REACH focus on controlling the use of chemical substances, its safe use and minimizing its ill-effects on environment and life. The manufacturers look into each area step by step, to make sure that the product is environmental compliant. First it is made sure that the hazardous substances such as pesticides, radioactive substances, chemicals, solvents, F-gases, ozone depleting substances, etc are absent. Then emissions into the air are assessed. Burning fuels, burning wastes etc are taken into consideration. The equipments including the batteries, vehicles, fire protection equipments are checked thoroughly. The packaging is then checked for environmental compliance. It is made sure that the wastes after manufacture are disposed of properly without polluting the water or air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeLobo Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 TThese program establish enormous regulatory burden on indsutries largely effectively in compliance without it. No wonder the economy is in such a mess - this burden can only be absorbed by big companies that can afford to maintain regulatory compliance personel. Small companies have no such expertise and typically go out of business or are gobbled up by these big guy who do not maitain their small companies employees. Thosecconsidering starting businesses find these regulatory burden to be excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitkat Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 The day that any environmental organization can prove that they restored a polluted river or lake to its original condition before man ruined it, then I will take them seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Thosecconsidering starting businesses find these regulatory burden to be excessive. Self-regulation worked great for BP!... Oh wait, no it failed spectacularly, both environmentally and economically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill Environmental degradation has generally not been included as a cost of doing business in the past, yet it is a cost and one that has to be answered for eventually. As a result, the general public tends to end up meeting the costs of a private entities' profit. As a member of the general public, I personally object to living with or cleaning up someone else's mess so they can make money. If the cost of meeting environmental regulations means your business model is unprofitable, your business model is unprofitable full stop and you shouldn't be in business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitkat Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Self-regulation worked great for BP!... Oh wait, no it failed spectacularly, both environmentally and economically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill Environmental degradation has generally not been included as a cost of doing business in the past, yet it is a cost and one that has to be answered for eventually. As a result, the general public tends to end up meeting the costs of a private entities' profit. As a member of the general public, I personally object to living with or cleaning up someone else's mess so they can make money. If the cost of meeting environmental regulations means your business model is unprofitable, your business model is unprofitable full stop and you shouldn't be in business. I agree with you and this is my point no one is taking responsibility for their actions nor are the organizations fighting for the environment doing anything productive that show that they can make a difference by example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeLobo Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 REACH and all the other silly programs would have done nothing re. BP. Please stay on subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anders Hoveland Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 What many of the environmentalists refuse to understand is that most of the pollution our developed countries are causing is coming from China. Either force the Chinese to comply with our levels of environmental protections when they are manufacturing our products, or impose tariffs on them. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65772-outsourcing-our-pollution-to-china/page__pid__671774#entry671774 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now