“Love Canal” case study

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

Review the “Love Canal” case study in Chapter 4. Is enough done to stop environmental crime in America? Are the laws strict enough when it comes to accountability and punishment? Provide some examples and your thoughts on the topic.
Regarding the environment, should safety-measure violations come under the jurisdiction of the national government or state government under the United States Federalist system? Provide your argument and rationale for your decision by using examples as needed.
Identify a couple of the twenty-first century individuals and organizations that are most successful at the money and religion connection. What are the similarities and differences between them? How are they different from those profiled in the text? Or, are they different?
What are hedge funds and how can unscrupulous businessmen use them to cheat the public?
Sherron Watkins worked for Enron and was the whistle blower who brought the unethical dealings out in the open. Did she get hurt as badly as other employees? If so, was she satisfied with Kenneth Lay’s response? Why did she not go to the authorities or to the regulators of the Enron board? What are your thoughts on how those in upper management positions were able to dump their stock for money while others were losing everything in their 401s?

Sample Solution

The Love Canal case study in Chapter 4 of The Criminalization of Environmental Protection provides an eye-opening look into how negligence and inadequate governmental regulation can result in serious environmental damage. This tragic case serves as a reminder that when it comes to preventing environmental crime, more needs to be done in terms of accountability and punishment for those responsible.

In the Love Canal case study, Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation (Hooker) is found guilty of intentionally dumping 20,000 tons of toxic chemical waste into the Niagara River without proper government oversight or safety regulations. This resulted in severe health risks for the citizens living near the river due to ground and water contamination. Although Hooker was held accountable by being ordered to pay fines amounting to $25 million dollars, this does little compared to the long term economic losses and health impacts caused by its actions (Booth et al., 2017).

This highlights some key flaws with current laws on environmental crime – namely that they often do not go far enough in punishing companies that violate pollution standards or expose communities to hazardous materials. This is especially true when there are no clear consequences for companies engaging in such activities which essentially reinforces their behavior(Schmidt 2016). Additionally, existing regulations tend to focus too much on monetary compensation rather than addressing underlying issues such as prevention through stricter enforcement measures (Goldschmitt & Beveridge 2014).

To address these weaknesses there should be increased penalties for violators including jail time for corporate executives involved with polluting sites (Schmidt 2016). Additionally, greater efforts need to be made towards improving public awareness so individuals know about potential dangers posed by nearby industries (Escande et al., 2020). Finally, governments at all levels should prioritize investing resources into improving compliance mechanisms through stronger monitoring systems designed specifically with protecting human health and the environment at heart.

Overall then ,while progress has been made when it comes to curbing environmental crimes such as those committed by Hooker at Love Canal – much work still remains until we see actual change occur on a larger scale.

e allows one to calculate how long it would take for a project to recapture the cost of the initial investment (Noreen, Brewer, & Garrison, 2014, p. 327).  The calculation is simple as it is the total cost of the project divided by the estimated cash inflows expected each year.  The end result is the number of years to recover the initial cost, or the payback period. As an example, my employer used this method as a guideline when deciding which research projects should/should not be undertaken.  Although the assumption is that most research projects will generate revenue for the organization, it isn’t known how long it will take before the healthcare organization recoups the investment they initially put into the project to get it off the ground. Based on the results of the payback method, leadership will decide whether or not to accept or reject the project if the payback period is too far out of their comfort zone.

There was a case recently in which one of our research sites proposed a new project that would study a new therapeutic drug used to potentially treat individuals affected by Parkinson’s disease.  The example is just an approximation of costs as I do not know the exact dollar amounts proposed for the project. The proposal stated that the yearly revenues generated from this new research study would be approximately $100,000 and the initial investment required would be $1 million dollars.  Therefore, the payback period would be 10 years: 1,000.000 (initial investment) / 100,000 (yearly inflows) = 10 years.  This project was hotly debated because some members of upper leadership wanted the payback period to be no longer than 7 years.  However, other leaders felt that although it would take slightly longer to recoup the investment, the project was actually going to last for 20 years instead of 10 years.  After 10 years, the organization has recovered their initial cost and the remaining 10 years would be revenue of approximately $1 million.  This doesn’t include the potential revenue if the new drug becomes FDA approved and can be used on a much larger population of patients within the entire healthcare industry.  Even though the payback method has flaws because it does not take into account the time value of money, leadership did decide to accept this particular project simply based on the potential revenue growth and healthcare benefit this could provide if the new treatment improved the overall health of those patients affected by the disease.

Another useful tool when evaluating capital investments is the internal rate of return (IRR), which does consider time value of money.  In terms of the project discussed above, the internal rate of re

This question has been answered.

Get Answer