[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Who are these groups? Are they above being lobbied by both industry and insurance? Who is paying them to be watch dogs? Who sues over environmental issues? A lot of times activist law is neither prosperous nor glamorous. And it fights against the interests of highly wealthy and powerful people.

Any organization would be lobbied by industry and insurance, this isn't really different from it is now, at least now outcomes (ie damages & premiums) would be tied to actualities and not what a government entity decides to "give up" in order to win support. There are tonnes of environmental organizations that would sue (ie greenpeace / Sierra Club / ect..) They rely on big money and small donations, again nothing different. Public support for causes has never had higher engagement than it does now due to social media and the internet.

Originally Posted by MattyC

In the case a claim is made, even after these compressors are added, how is this small company that specializes in very specific type of insurance going to payout a claim? The will require the backing of larger institutions.
Who regulates if they have the financial backing to payout such a claim?

More Insurance companies! JK.... kinda. Insurance companies operate under certain regulation now so they need to be able to prove the have enough capital to cover their liabilities. In a purely privatized regulatory model a new mechanism to regulate the insurance companies would be needed. Or alternatively it is the aspect of government regulation left (although i dont think the system would be able to properly operate in the longer term if any government is involved)

Originally Posted by MattyC

There are no tax incentives or insurance premium reductions for reducing liability currently? I'm not arguing the current regulatory methods are sound (I honestly don't know much about them), but I would have to assume that there incentives to operate business responsibly. The question again is it the proper method to curb behaviour? We would probably both agree it's not.

There are some yes, and i was only giving a VERY specific example. But currently in AB only Large emission producers (see SGER) pay for incremental increases in emissions. So small producers are basically said stay under X amount and you are good no penalty, but its not ZERO. Any mechanism that financially incentivizes companies to move to ZERO is better than just saying stay under this so you wont get in trouble.

We can agree the current regulatory model is not the best, but it has proven at a minimum as moderately effective.

Originally Posted by MattyC

I would argue a for-profit business will never incentivize itself to spending more money on self-regulation than is the absolute bear minimum required. Including doing things that are illegal purely because cost of punishment is less than profit. It flies the face of the principle of why things are illegal. Something needs to disincentivize this "cheat until your caught. And then just pay and keep cheating." mindset. Things are illegal because they go against the public good/morals, not because they cost too much.

I disagree especially when it comes to environmental. Avoiding a PR nightmare (which is typically associated with any environmental issue) helps stockholders. By putting the onus on the public to sue for bad practices ensures companies operate in a fashion that best serves the people, not the government. I also dont believe that ALL for-profits will never spend more than they "have to". Will some? Yes absolutely, but these wont be large players (again going back to PR and stockholders), and will likely have to pay higher premiums making them less competitive and phasing them out of the industry. I have plenty of clients that purposely go above and beyond regulation because they know its good practice and will save them headaches in the future.