Environmental Issues of Hooker Chemicals and Plastic Company - Essay Example

? Philosophy Hooker Chemicals and Plastic Company is a California based oil and gas corporation. The company is known to provide operations in United States, Middle East, North Africa and also in South America. An issue was raised several years ago for causing damage to the area because of chemical contamination. The question at issue here is to figure out who was responsible for the contamination of Love canal, neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York. In this paper, we will try to answer the relevant questions and we will sort out how much damage was done by the company who brought this piece of land. It was a burning issue at that time and did not end until 1998. The environmental damage done became a source of great disturbance in the area and remained unsolved until 1998. Generally, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Company who brought this parcel of land for dumping chemical wastes are the ones, blamed for this whole contamination and the harmful effects it imposed on the people living in the areas nearby and it is not wrong at all to put blame on them. (Michael Harold Brown, 1980) Did Hooker know the damage it has caused to the canal area over the years? Had the company done it intentionally or unintentionally? How much responsible is the government itself and public who got affected in this scenario? The company did know about the hazardous facts and also was aware of what it had done before closing the landfill in early 1950s. Otherwise, it did not have protested against its excavation. Further noticed, it removed itself from any kind of liability at the time of selling the land to the local government. This makes it evident without a doubt that the company knew what damage it has posed to the whole area. Both these reasons conform to the deduction that Hooker knew what he had done to Love canal. (Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. Public Affairs Dept.; 1980) Before closing the landfill in 1950s, the company took no necessary precaution but kept dumping its dangerous chemical wastes in the landfill, for who was going to raise a question on them. It was not after closing the landfill that Hooker started taking some precautionary actions. This time Hooker really worked and rather diligently to contain the wastes. It lined the canal with impenetrable concrete, and placed a waterproof ceramic cap over the chemicals to prevent rainwater from entering. There precautions far exceeded common practice at the time. Emphasis being on far exceeded. Why was the company so conscious about taking precautions at that time when it had not even bothered to take one before? Answer is again the same. Hooker knew the damage the contamination has done and for the same reason it had protested against the excavation of Love canal. The precautions were merely to hide the gruesome effects of its activities from the masses and government. Had there been no removal of the ceramic caps and concrete walls, no one would have known the damage company had done. (Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. Public Relations Dept.; 1980; Seebauer & Barry 2000) In addition, the company did not disclose the details about the content of the landfill. There are great many facts that reach to the same conclusion: Hooker was the only one who was responsible for the environmental damage in Love canal and the nearby areas. It might be so that just to escape the heavy fine and charges for the violation of laws, the company did all the necessary dramatic performance to hide what they had done to the environment. The fact that public did not complaint about the health damage due to the disastrous chemical wasting in the Love canal except some very few owes to another fact. Hooker was the major employer in the area and had some great influence. This was enough to stop them from speaking against the company. Their own jobs would have been in danger if they even thought about bringing the matter up to the Government’s consideration. Hooker Chemicals was in no way a socially responsible company, also witnessed by numerous citizens. Before starting dumping chemical wastes, they should have checked whether the chemicals they were disposing off in the landfill are harmful for the environment or not. Even if a company is disposing off wastes, it should do so after performing all the necessary processes for neutralizing all the chemicals so that they can in no way effect the environment or become harmful in future for the area being dumped at. The company did not bother to do any prior research in that case or so it seems and their seemed nothing harmful, luckily, in the beginning either. Real perilous effects showed themselves after quite some time i.e. in 1960s. One may say that the company had researched and knew what they were going to do with their dumping wastes. But if it had been so, wouldn’t the company have taken the necessary precautions before closing the landfill at Love canal instead of after closing it? Even if they had checked about the wastes, soon to be dumped in the landfill, they had ignored them till the time for their implementation had come. (Robert W Collin, 2006; Seebauer & Barry 2000) The damage done by the Hooker Company in the area and the adjoining areas too, was long run so initially complaints were considerably few. The number of complaints rose in 1970s when due to heavy rain falls, water table had raised causing the land to subside, creating pools of toxins and becoming a source of bad odors. Either the whole damage done to the environment was due to negligence of the company or it all was done intentionally. Both were the possibilities but no one knew of the true explanation. The results and the behavior of the company clearly depicted their triviality and substantiated that the Company was not socially responsible by any means. A little part of responsibility laid on public as well. Why had they not raised their voice when there raised some initial environmental problems in the area near Love canal? The answer we could clearly understand is only because the influence of the Company on the community people was consequently huge, as it was the major employer in the area. Opposition to these premises and conclusion is possible. The government might be blamed instead of the company. One can say that it was the sole responsibility of government to keep a check of the activities of the companies and their endeavors. It is also whispered that the Government sold some parts of the land to be utilized for residential purpose. It was solely done to benefit the Government as it brought big line of profits. The Government could charge Hooker Chemicals and such companies for the damages caused and also have checked it before the company started the dumping process in Love canal. But why was the government quiet about the issue? Answer to all these oppositions is simple: Once a company is registered it means that it’s going to be ethically, socially and environmentally responsible along with its business dealings. Government is not considerably untenanted that it will start checking every company and business individually. Being a company, Hooker Chemicals were undoubtedly responsible for their actions. Ignorance is not an excuse in law. They were rightly sued by federal government and charged against the damages being done in the Love canal and the adjoining area. ( Oak Ridge National Laboratory.; United States. Dept. of Energy. Division of Environmental Control Technology.; Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp, 1977) In the end, considering all the premises, deductions, conclusions and objections, it is finally concluded that the whole responsibility of the environmental damage done in the Love canal after it was bought in 1947 lies on Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Company. The company is very much liable to pay for their hideous crime and accept all the responsibilities for causing all sorts of damage to the area. References: Brown, M. H. (1980). Laying waste: The poisoning of America by toxic chemicals. New York, NY: Pantheon Book Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (1980). Love Canal, the facts: 1892-1980. Houston, Tex: Hooker. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (1980). What the Wall street journal said about Love canal. Niagara Falls, N.Y: Hooker Chemical Public Relations Collin, R. W. (2006). The Environmental Protection Agency: Cleaning up America's act. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. Oak Ridge National Laboratory., United States., & Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (1977). Formerly utilized MED/AEC sites remedial action programs: Radiological survey of the Hooker Chemical Company, Niagara Falls, N.Y. Washington: Dept. of Energy Top of Form Seebauer, E. G., & Barry, R. L. (2000). Fundamentals of ethics for scientists and engineers. New York: Oxford University Press. Bottom of Form Read More