Please explain to me the main arguement of individuals who support compensation for environmental restrictions

Answer 1

It's a trade-off. The company's profits may decrease by following environmental restrictions, so the environmental group or government imposing those restrictions compensates them. In return, society reduces pollution going into its air, water, and soil.

Ex: The company may lose productivity of its machines because its operations might be limited to a set limit of hours or a set limit of pollutants per time period. In this case, they are compensated for their lost earning potential. Or, the company may have increased costs due to required purchases of new equipment or attachments that will help reduce polluting emissions. Increased labor time to internally monitor emissions and keep things up to code can also increase costs, potentially reducing profits.

Of course, purchasing new equipment or updating old equipment may also increase efficancy and/or reduce operating costs. (Like when you maintain your automobile by changing your oil and air filter, you may get better gas mileage.)

Answer 2

According to the constitution, the government is not supposed to take away your property without compensating you for it. If tney impose certain regulations, such as you can't build on it, they are essentially taking away your property rights and devaluing your land. Rather than compensating them, I might prefer to make more reasonable environmental regulations. Certain laws such as the Endangered Species Act is being grossly abused by environment activists.

Answer 3

You are limiting the usefulness of the land - the value of it.

If someone buys land expecting to build, and then they can't, the land has lost a lot of its value.

Someone who supported compensation would analogize to Enron - someone bought the stock thinking it was a certain value, and whoever by their deliberate actions made the stock lose value should compensate.