Drinking Water Incentives
From what I learned in Michael Sandel's book and from the problem that I see when corporations contaminate drinking water, I think that I can provide a solution for this problem. In my op-ed piece, I discuss how our drinking water is on the line and how big corporations are one of the reasons for the contamination. Big corporations do not care that they are hurting the countries water supply. Even though that there are fines involved, the companies see that they rather just pay the fine and and commit the crime because it is more profitable for them.
Michael Sandel analyzed this phenomenon. Wealthy people and corporations look at these fines rather as fees to act above the law. They rather just commit the crime and pay the fine rather than try to avoid committing the crime to the best of their ability. I think that there is a few ways to fix this issue. One way to stop companies from committing these crimes against drinking water is to make the fines more expensive. I think that if the fine is overall more expensive, companies will stop committing these crime. It could be a possibility to make the fine based on a percentage of how much the company is making, so that more wealthier companies will exponentially have to pay more and will reconsider contaminating the drinking water.
Another way to try to control the contamination is to incentivize the companies. I think that the fines should be kept, but if the company displays good behavior, then the company should be rewarded. The behavior should be above and beyond what is expected from them so that there is a benefit to the environment. For example, if a company hosts monthly clean-ups for areas around their facilities, they should be rewarded. The reward should be some kind of compensation that would more beneficial than committing the crime itself. The government might be hesitant paying the companies for good behaviors, but having to clean up contamination is also extremely expensive, and if the companies are not contaminating, as well as benefiting the environment, they should be compensated for that.
Michael Sandel analyzed this phenomenon. Wealthy people and corporations look at these fines rather as fees to act above the law. They rather just commit the crime and pay the fine rather than try to avoid committing the crime to the best of their ability. I think that there is a few ways to fix this issue. One way to stop companies from committing these crimes against drinking water is to make the fines more expensive. I think that if the fine is overall more expensive, companies will stop committing these crime. It could be a possibility to make the fine based on a percentage of how much the company is making, so that more wealthier companies will exponentially have to pay more and will reconsider contaminating the drinking water.
Another way to try to control the contamination is to incentivize the companies. I think that the fines should be kept, but if the company displays good behavior, then the company should be rewarded. The behavior should be above and beyond what is expected from them so that there is a benefit to the environment. For example, if a company hosts monthly clean-ups for areas around their facilities, they should be rewarded. The reward should be some kind of compensation that would more beneficial than committing the crime itself. The government might be hesitant paying the companies for good behaviors, but having to clean up contamination is also extremely expensive, and if the companies are not contaminating, as well as benefiting the environment, they should be compensated for that.