You're arguing what is just, from a perspective, but not an absolute. If a factory upstream is polluting and causing a village $200 of damage a year, and if it

You're arguing what is just, from a perspective, but not an absolute. If a factory upstream is polluting and causing a village $200 of damage a year, and if it were possible to pay the factory $100 to reduce this pollution to a $50 impact, should the village not pay? They'll net $50 in benefit. Devil's advocate argument of sorts, but one that focuses on the absolute. Real-life is harder. What if some of the village are employed at the factory? What if the factory produces produces the village needs but costs far more elsewhere? What if the factory employs people from another nearby poor village and your village is a comparatively rich village? Point is: Look for win-wins and an objective framework to work in, not for multiple parties anchoring around their single issue concerns, blinkered from the bigger picture. Talking completely in general. Not verified figures in article either.