i find it odd that the most common recommendation for saving the our natural world is the imposition of grand-scale, far-reaching laws and programs thunk up and implemented by those that are supposedly in the pockets of the same corporations that are destroying our natural world. we couldn't possibly fix all the pollution without bringing to bear the mighty hammer of uncle sam!
nonsense. we've got all we need in the way of laws if we'd only enforce them. stop enabling the bad behavior through tax breaks, ineffective regulation, etc. we are subsidizing pollution when we don't make polluters bear the cost of their pollution. i agree it might take some creative thinking (and vigorous lawyering) to figure out how to bill for it, but making those pay that incur the expense is a fairly simple yet powerful idea.
i think of it this way: coal power becomes more expensive when the true costs of its consumption are known, as reflected by its price. wind or solar power suddenly becomes a better option as their prices fall relative to polluting fuels. communities affected by dirty drinking water get paid to fix the problem. i don't think any company could fail to understand the added cost of polluting.
that said, maybe i should pay some restitution since i drive a polluting vehicle. i just need to figure out who to make my cheques out to. hold us bad guys to account.