Running Head: SHOULD FINES ON POLLUTION BE HIGHER

Should Fines on Corporate Pollution Be More Punitive?

A Line of Inquiry Essay
Nicole Finegan
James Madison University

Author Note
This paper was prepared for WRTC 103, taught by Professor Fielding.

SHOULD FINES ON POLLUTION BE HIGHER

Abstract
The earth serves as humanitys only home, so would it not follow that people should want
to keep their home safe and healthy? Apparently the environment remains of little concern to big
business, however the rest of the population should have concerns. Stopping large amounts of
pollution will raise the standards of living not only for the current generation but also for their
posterity. This essay summarizes, compares, contrasts, and evaluates three sources that attempt to
solve the pollution crisis the world now faces.

SHOULD FINES ON POLLUTION BE HIGHER

Should Fines for Corporate Pollution Be More Punitive?

A Line of Inquiry Essay
Do you know what percentage of air you just breathed in is toxic? Do you know how
much of those toxins are produced by companies you may consume from? The time has come to
seriously examine possible regulations on companies whose pollution affects all of us daily. Ever
since the industrial revolution, pollution has sky rocketed, leading governments to push for
monetary restrictions on companies who continue to raise the levels. Although some monetary
caps have been created, researches evaluate the overall effectiveness of these fines. Pollution is
the toxic release of chemicals into air, water, or other natural systems in an ecosystem. If not
regulated, abundant pollution can permanently damage the earth. The amount of pollution given
off by companies collectively and independently destroys the earth around us. Whether monetary
caps are the answer or not is a question needing to be researched further in order to stop pollution
and save the planet.
In S.E. Smiths article, Seven Companies Polluting the World Without Consequences,
he describes seven of the highest polluting companies in order to support his claim that they do
not receive consequence for their actions. The most well-known companies Smith reports on are
General Electric and Dow Chemicals. Smith emphasizes the thirty years it took to hold GE
responsible for polluting the Hudson River and believes that their cleanup restrictions are too
lenient (2013). He goes on to highlight Dows Bhopal disaster, when one of their power plants
released toxic gas into Bhopal resulting in the killing of thousands (2013). Smith emphasizes the
differences in each of the seven companies, how some use marketing techniques to hide their
toxic impacts, or how others use their industrys influence to control state policy (2013). He
concludes his article with a call to action. Smith provides a resource for readers to develop a

SHOULD FINES ON POLLUTION BE HIGHER

broader scope of understanding about the dirtiest corporations in order to inspire readers to
become active against contamination in their environment.
Polluters and Penalties: Will Higher Fines Make a Difference in Texas? written by
Dave Fehling, analyzes critiques on whether or not the rise in taxes on companies polluting has
produced change or are not costly enough to deter corporate pollution. Fehling begins his article
by reporting the change in penalties on pollution jumping from 10,000 dollars to 25,000 dollars,
including Toby Bakers, member of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ),
confidence that this change in fines will limit pollution production (2013). He then cites
doubters, or those who believe that there needs to be more expensive punishments to actually
elicit change. Lastly, Fehling closes his article with reports on rising pollution potential within
the state, indicating that if the new rises in taxes do not work then there could be serious
environmental impairment.
Kenneth Chilton evaluates different aspects that impact the changing of federal
regulations to be harsher against company pollution within his article, Stricter Federal
Regulations May Be Counterproductive in Preventing Air Pollution. First, Chilton argues that
the EPAs standards for air pollution express an unachievable goal of 0% air pollution and then
contends that even partially complying with their regulations would cost billions (2001). He then
goes on to assert that air pollution differs from state to state, so he recommends instead of a
national solution that states handle emission problems individually (2001). Finally, Chilton
concludes his critique by stating that the best solution to cleaner air would be for Congress to
amend the Clean Air Act to include, policies that do not consider risks from environmental
contaminants in isolation (2001).

Smiths claims about corporate punishment run congruent with some of Fehlings claims
about the success of fines on pollution. First, both sources agree on the idea of using monetary

SHOULD FINES ON POLLUTION BE HIGHER

funds to punish corporate pollution. Smith strongly argues for updated policies that caps fines
higher. For example, he states that an outdated law capped fines at just 10,000 dollars for
Williams Energy, not nearly enough of a punishment to enact change (2013). Similarly, Fehling
quotes TCEQ member Toby Baker on his optimism that new fines in Texas will decrease major
emissions (2013). Both sources also question the extent of power current taxes hold over
incentives to pollute. Smith refers to the outdated capped fine, while Fehling cites Rock Owens,
lead environmental lawyer for the Harris County Attorneys office, on his idea that even 25,000dollar fines are not enough for companies to change to cleaner methods (2013).
Fehlings article also analyses how effective environmental regulations are, similar to
Chilton. At the end of Fehlings piece he reports that TCEQ (Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality) allows the burning off of gases through a method called flaring,
releasing vapors that could otherwise be captured in pipelines (2013). Fehling highlights this lack
of regulation by the TCEQ to support his findings on rising air pollution. Chilton also criticizes
the environmental organization EPA for their poor policy. He claims that the EPA expects the air
pollution supply to reduce to zero, stating that any air pollution goes against their policy and that
it is an unreachable goal for most companies (2001).
Although Chilton and Fehling agree on improving regulation on pollution, their reasoning
has fundamental differences, as they focus on different aspects of corporate pollution. Chilton
argues that regulations should be lowered in order to promote attainability so businesses can
work towards an achievable goal. On the other had, part of Fehlings argument calls for more
regulations, specifically the increase in the fines that corporations should receive. Another
difference is that Chilton analyzes the cost to benefit of raising taxes on pollution, while Fehling
uses outside opinions on whether or not the taxation is really beneficial.

SHOULD FINES ON POLLUTION BE HIGHER

Due to the fact that Fehling analyzed both sides to whether or not businesses should be
fined heavier, it has contrasts with Smiths claims. Fehling began his essay with a TCEQ
representative believing that the new rise in fine limits in Texas would positively affect corporate
pollution. However, throughout each business Smith describes he constantly claims the need for
harsher punishment, whether through monetary punishment or the changing of regulatory
policies. Fehling also evaluated the rise in pollution potential as businesses grow, while Smith
limits his focus on past disasters caused by big businesses.
Of the articles, Smiths writing incorporated the most bias through his tone and his
disregard to acknowledge the other side of the argument. Also, based on statements in his
biography he likes to challenge popular ideas about democracy, which supports the idea
that his bias was not left out of the article. However, Smith cites events and factual information
to support his claims. His paper also remains very relevant because companies continually cause
drastic environmental disasters, speaking to his claim that these companies do not face severe
enough retributions.
Written in third person point-of-view, Fehlings article maintains an unbiased nature,
however the relevancy of the article remains questionable. The area of concern is the fact that the
article focuses on Texas regulation instead of the nation as a whole. The article also contains
excess speculation about whether or not fines are effective at their current level. In order to
increase credibility the author should include statistics that show the rate of effectiveness the
states fines imposed on stopping corporate pollution. His overall credibility stems from the fact
that he has a rich background in journalism and uses a third person point of view to
report facts and the opinions of others, keeping the paper unbiased.

SHOULD FINES ON POLLUTION BE HIGHER

Although Chiltons article may seem outdated, I believe the information within the
writing maintains the articles relevancy. Since air pollution is still an issue today,
especially when it comes to the EPA defining the boundaries at which air becomes toxic, I
believe this article is still relevant in the debate about how to limit pollution output. Also, Chilton
maintains an unbiased tone throughout the article while supporting quoted
claims with researched facts and analyzes the benefits and costs of both
sides of the argument.
I now realize the different aspects that affect how to effectively limit corporate pollution.
After annotating the articles I believe now that if heftier fines were put in place that they should
be limited to the top contributors to different kinds of pollution. Also, I believe the EPA should
place obtainable goals when setting air pollution restrictions, instead of a policy that requires 0%
air pollution. Although each source provided different views on the issue, I still
maintain that a heftier fine on big businesses would deter them from harmful pollution. To gain
extra insight into the matter I would want to ultimately look into studies taken over time to see if
smaller monetary taxes actually are very effective or if the government should be taking a
different approach.

SHOULD FINES ON POLLUTION BE HIGHER

References
Chilton, Kenneth. (2001) Stricter Federal Regulations May Be Counterproductive in Preventing
Air Pollution. The Environment. Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage.
Fehling, Dave. (2013) Polluters and Penalties: Will Higher Fines Make a Difference in Texas?
Retrieved from https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/02/11/polluters-and-penalties-willhigher-fines-make-a-difference-in-texas/.
Smith, S.E. (2013) Seven Companies Polluting the World Without Consequences. Retrieved
from http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16720-seven-companies-polluting-the-worldwithout-consequences.