Cost-benefit analysis in environmental law and corporate social responsibility

¶ … EPA should be able to use a cost-benefit analysis in setting rules to enforce the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed upon this issue as well, which helps to buttress my viewpoint. On the other hand, the EPA should not use a cost-benefit analysis because it is important for companies to do all that they can to protect the health of consumers. I do think that companies such as Entergy owe a duty of social responsibility, but that it does not include adopting the most effective technology. Instead, they can adopt effective technology that can help reduce the noxious effect of water. Entergy does not owe a social responsibility duty -- that should be determined by social agencies. If the Supreme Court had not enabled the EPA to utilize cost benefit analysis for this particular decision, more companies would have had to spend greater amounts of money protecting consumers from hazards associated with their tampering with the water supply.

The 80% reduction in rent is fair, and should be upheld in the court case of Solow v. Wellner. In this case, the landlord has obviously reneged on his responsibility to render the building in question one that is reasonably habitable. The failing or leaking air conditioning in a place such as New York -- in which heat waves are not uncommon -- could certainly impact the health of the tenants, who deserve more return on their high rents.

No, the tenants should not get an 80% reduction in rent in the aforementioned court case. As their very survival indicates, the building that they are living in is habitable. Moreover, many of their grievances are mere inconveniences. For instance, the fact that the air conditioning is leaking in individual units is not harming anyone. The same concept applies to the stench emanating from the basement.

The case of Sierra Club v. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, does not really pertain to doing business in the U.S. The reason this statement is true is because those suing on behalf of endangered species, The Sierra Club, were not able to successfully sue the Secretary of Agriculture. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the defendant, the aforementioned secretary. The United States of America v. Cinemark Inc. does pertain to doing business in this country. It proves that those offering accommodations to the public must provide parity between those for the general public and the disabled. The Federal Trade Commission v. Coglate-Palmolive Company certainly pertains to doing business in the U.S., as companies cannot engage in false or deceptive advertising to lure customers into buying their products (New York Times, 2003). The State of Missouri v. Berkeley case pertains to doing business in the U.S., and establishes a precedent that zoning concerns can apply to aesthetics, not merely code regulations.