LETTER: System that makes it cheaper to pollute than to conserve
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Martin Harper
Sir: Your leading article "Why oil firms should save our coasts" (23 February), expounding the virtues of the polluter-pays principle, is correct to point out that this is applicable in the Milford Haven disaster. You fail, however, to highlight the classic flaw of our market-based economy on which the principle is founded - it does not incorporate environmental values.
While oil companies may be asked to fork out millions of pounds for the clean-up operation, who will compensate those who have, hopefully temporarily but potentially terminally, lost the enjoyment of the beauty and wildlife of the region? Without a proper mechanism for financially quantifying quality of human life, the polluter will always escape full punishment.
Yours faithfully,
Martin Harper
London, SE24
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments