I am not solely placing the blame on corporations. However there are certain industries that are especially damaging including the petrol chemical industry, the automotive industry, and the coal industry to just name a few. I also don't think profit is a bad thing. That is what most companies existence is based on. However if the sole purpose is to make money do you think that in the face of proof that they are severely damaging the environment that they would cease to do so? Or would they simply seek to distort the evidence? Is profit more important that environment? Was BP dumping millions of barrels of oil into the oceans a good thing? Are there or should there be any limitations on greed in a capitalist society? Has there ever been any evidence that for profit corporations have policed themselves for the good of the environment excluding public relations campaigns?
Quote Originally Posted by creefer View Post
Why is it that you are placing the blame solely on corporations? I suspect that there are other issues not related to corporations that have a direct affect on the contamination of the environment. I don't necessarily believe that corporations are responsible for the overall health, or lack thereof, of reefs. Further, corporations do exist that are not solely for the purposes of profit. I happen to be a member of one where profits are virtually nonexistent. Any group of people can form a corporation for various reasons. And please, don't paint a picture that profitability is a bad thing. We are, after all, a capitalist society and the system works beautifully when our elected officials stay out of the way.

Chort55, I agree with everything you have to say, btw.