Why does regulation automatically mean a bad thing? Sure costs are added. But these might be nothing compared to other medium and longer term costs that would be suffered without legislation. A longer view makes us see the following inevitabilities: increasing regulatory interventions and/or the reinvention or replacement of chemicals used in our industrial system. If companies reinvented how they use chemicals in their businesses, then regulation wouldn't be needed.
A reminder that there need to be ways to turn externalities into internalities if business decisions and indeed other financially linked decisions are to work for the common good.
Incidentally, the article is o good study on how the EU's arguable growing dominance in the world:
...military matters and classic realpolitick, the conventional benchmarks from which we judge superpower status today ... come from the past's "might makes right" interpretation of how the world works. While this will never go away completely, we're arguably entering a different world where "soft power" and "cooperative advantage" matters just as much if not more -- and this is where Europe has been quietly leading.
Oh and the chemical thing was passed, good. But with amendments, maybe not so good, I'm awaiting info.
WorldChanging: Another World Is Here: REACHing for Sustainable Uses of Chemicals in Europe: Filed in: business, regulation, environment, cradle-to-cradle, natural-capitalism
No comments:
Post a Comment