Chad,
We probably agree on more than we disagree but my thoughts on the topics (as I abbreviated your post) are more practical. No matter how environmentally sensitive it is, it is always possible for any "polluter" (of any size) to do better. The question is always how much better at how much cost. Cows emit methane, collectively, in harmful quantities (from burping, I am told) but how much are we willing to increase the price of milk to eliminate or significantly reduce those emissions. Some are willing (and able) to pay more than others but that approaches a political issue more than an environmental one (it should be no surprise that environmental law courses are as much a course on politics as legal issues).
The problem I have with the
FOE report cited in the Miami Herald is that it did not explain its methods, just gave out grades. The "standards" they used were not explained except in highly general and ambiguous terms: how do you measure whether a line installs "the
most advanced sewage and wastewater treatment systems available" or whether the line was "dumping raw or
minimally treated sewage directly into the water." It would make me quite
to be graded on such vague standards on any subject and led me to wonder whether FOE issued the grade sheet for its own publicity benefit. You get a lot of free press by attacking Disney.
So there is the big problem. The setting of environmental standards is a horribly complex undertaking. It is a mixture of health and cost (risk and benefit) as well as location. Whenever any regulation is issued there will be an inevitable and costly legal challenge. Cruise ship discharges are a good example. The EPA has been studying discharge standards from cruise ships since 2000, when Congress passed an appropriations bill setting discharge standards for Alaska and
telling the EPA to develop additional standards. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but again, that is a political question. My point (and view) is that it helps no one to be alarmist and sensational - one way or the other. (To be clear, I am not saying your posts have been alarmist or sensational.)
Disney's
corporate responsibility page has links (which, as is so typical, sometimes don't work) to Disney's corporate environmental initiatives and its forward looking initiatives for the environment (which are admittedly general) can be found
here.
DCL's environmental page can be found
here. The video Armand described (I think) can be seen on the
DCL site.
Strangely, they say nothing about pixie dust power.
.
