Polluters' Ploys: Chemical Companies' Cost-Cutting Corners

Chemical companies have a long history of avoiding responsibility for environmental damage. DuPont, for instance, pumped dangerous substances into the environment and then spun off a new company, Chemours, in an attempt to dodge accountability. This blame-shifting exercise has made it difficult for regulators to hold anyone accountable for years of contamination. Chemours itself has claimed that it doesn't have the financial resources to cover the cost of cleanup, a situation that has been common for decades, with financially struggling companies abandoning polluted areas and leaving others to foot the bill. While environmental groups have pushed for stricter financial responsibility requirements, the chemical industry has pushed back, arguing that they have cleaned up their act and that polluters should not be held responsible for cleanup costs.

Companies claim they don't have enough money for cleanup

In the United States, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as the Superfund law, addresses the liability and cleanup of land contaminated with hazardous waste. The Superfund Act contains a provision that instructs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require industries that handle hazardous substances to have the financial means to clean up any toxic releases. However, the EPA did not act on the financial assurances provision.

Despite this, some companies claim they don't have enough money for cleanup. For example, Chemours, a chemical company based in North Carolina, contaminated water supplies, river sediment, and rain with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Chemours claims it doesn't have enough money to cover all its cleanup liability. Similarly, DuPont, which spun off Chemours in 2015, has gone to great lengths to dodge responsibility for pumping dangerous substances into the environment.

The concept of making polluters, not taxpayers, foot the bill for cleanup is not new. It dates back to a 1980 US federal law. However, in recent years, the cost of cleaning up hazardous waste sites has increasingly shifted from corporations to taxpayers. The Trump administration even planned to forego a federal requirement that chemical manufacturers cover the costs of cleanup from their operations.

Environmental activists argue that things haven't changed much since the 20th century. They point to modern environmental practices as evidence that companies have cleaned up their act, but activists say this isn't enough. The EPA has also been criticized for its lack of action on financial responsibility requirements for industries beyond chemical manufacturing, including petroleum, coal, and electricity generation.

They avoid responsibility by creating spinoff companies

Chemical companies have employed various strategies to avoid taking responsibility for environmental pollution. One such strategy involves creating spinoff companies to distance themselves from the negative impact of their operations. By doing so, they can protect their reputation and financial interests while evading accountability for the harm caused to the environment and public health.

A spinoff company is created when a parent company reshapes a part of its operations into a separate entity, distributing shares tax-free to its shareholders. This allows the parent company to focus on its core competencies and improve its stock value. In the context of pollution avoidance, a chemical company might spin off a division that is responsible for environmentally damaging practices or is facing negative publicity due to its impact on the environment.

For example, consider a chemical company with a division that produces hazardous waste as a byproduct of its manufacturing process. Instead of investing in waste treatment and disposal methods to mitigate the environmental impact, the company might decide to spin off this division into a separate entity. By doing so, the parent company can distance itself from the negative associations of hazardous waste production and present itself as more environmentally responsible.

The spinoff company, now operating independently, may continue the harmful practices without the scrutiny associated with the parent company. It can also acquire new management and a different name, further obscuring its connection to the parent company. This tactic allows the original company to avoid taking responsibility for the pollution caused by the spun-off division, as the legal and financial liabilities now fall under the spinoff entity.

To hold chemical companies accountable, governments and environmental groups have proposed various regulations and laws. For instance, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as the Superfund law, addresses the liability and cleanup of land contaminated with hazardous waste. By enforcing such legislation, polluters can be held responsible for the financial and environmental consequences of their actions, rather than passing the burden onto taxpayers or leaving polluted areas unattended.

They blame other companies for the pollution

While chemical companies are responsible for a large proportion of global emissions, they often avoid paying for the pollution they cause. One way they do this is by blaming other companies for the pollution. This strategy involves deflecting responsibility and shifting blame to other entities, thereby avoiding financial liability and public scrutiny.

For instance, in the case of PFAS contamination in North Carolina, Chemours, the chemical company responsible, claimed it lacked the financial resources to cover the cleanup costs. Despite polluting water supplies, river sediment, and rain, they evaded accountability by pointing to their economic struggles. This is a common tactic used by chemical companies to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

In another example, DuPont factories were found to have pumped dangerous substances into the environment. However, the company and its related entities went to great lengths to dodge accountability. They denied responsibility and refused to acknowledge the environmental harm caused by their operations. This denial and deflection of blame allowed them to escape the financial burden of remediation.

Additionally, chemical companies often point fingers at other industries or sectors, arguing that they are not the only contributors to pollution. They may highlight the fashion industry's position as the second-biggest industrial polluter or the impact of fossil fuel companies. By spreading blame across multiple sectors, chemical companies attempt to minimize their own role in environmental damage.

Furthermore, chemical companies may shift blame onto consumers, arguing that individual choices and consumption patterns are significant factors in pollution. They promote the idea that consumer behaviour changes, such as buying green products or reducing plastic straw usage, are enough to combat climate change. This narrative misplaces responsibility and diverts attention from the corporate interests that have a much larger impact on the environment.

They argue that they adhere to pollution-control laws

Chemical companies have a long history of pumping dangerous substances into the environment and avoiding liability for the consequences. However, US chemical companies argue that they have cleaned up their act and adhere to pollution-control laws. They point to modern environmental practices superimposed on years of adhering to pollution-control laws.

The Trump administration agreed with these companies, foregoing a federal requirement to ensure that chemical manufacturers could cover the costs of cleanup from their operations. This is in contrast to the Superfund law, which was passed in response to the discovery of leaking hazardous waste sites containing tons of toxic chemicals. The Superfund law addresses liability and cleanup of land contaminated with hazardous waste, but it has not always been enforced, and companies have often abandoned polluted areas, leaving others to foot the cleanup bill.

The chemical industry's argument that it adheres to pollution-control laws is complicated by the fact that environmental regulations vary considerably across different pollution media and locations. For example, the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 in the US have been amended, and additional regulations have targeted toxic waste. However, there are still serious gaps in the adoption of pollution control measures, and global understanding of the issue of chemical pollution remains fragmented.

While some argue that environmental regulations impose huge costs on businesses, lowering productivity and driving firms to move elsewhere, others argue that regulations can spur innovation, providing economic benefits and reducing pollution. The Porter hypothesis, for example, suggests that more stringent policies should trigger greater investment in developing new pollution-saving technologies, which can lead to cost-cutting efficiency improvements and foster innovation. This hypothesis is supported by empirical analyses showing that environmental regulations can induce innovation in clean technologies, although the resulting benefits may not always be large enough to outweigh the costs of regulations for regulated entities.

They claim pollution occurred before their company existed

One of the ways chemical companies avoid paying for pollution is by claiming that the pollution occurred before their company was even established. For instance, the former Hooker Electrochemical Co., later purchased by Occidental Chemical, disposed of chemical waste in the Love Canal neighbourhood of Niagara Falls, New York, in the 1940s and 1950s. However, the Superfund law, a US federal law from 1980, addresses liability and cleanup of land contaminated with hazardous waste.

Another example is the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, which became so polluted that the water caught fire several times between 1936 and 1969. The fires were caused by debris and oil that had accumulated on the water's surface, igniting when exposed to sparks or flames. These incidents sparked public outrage and led to the creation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972, also known as the Clean Water Act. This legislation provides funding to improve sewage treatment plants and sets limits on the discharge of pollutants into the water.

In addition to historical pollution, chemical companies also avoid taking responsibility for current pollution by exploiting loopholes and lax regulations. For example, the Trump administration supported chemical manufacturers by foregoing a federal requirement that ensured these companies could cover the costs of cleaning up their operations. This decision shifted the financial burden of cleanup efforts onto taxpayers instead of holding the polluting companies accountable.

Furthermore, some chemical companies argue that they have improved their environmental practices and adhered to pollution-control laws. They claim that their modern practices demonstrate a commitment to reducing pollution. However, this does not absolve them from the responsibility of addressing historical pollution that occurred before their improved practices were implemented.

While there have been efforts to hold chemical companies accountable, such as the Superfund law and the Clean Water Act, there is still a long way to go in ensuring these companies take responsibility for their actions. It is crucial for governments and regulatory bodies to enforce stringent measures and close legal loopholes that allow these companies to evade accountability for the pollution they have caused, regardless of when it occurred.

Frequently asked questions