3 ms·

Don’t be facetious—it’s clear that the other commenter is addressing your question of how the US could “outsource production” if not to China. And of all the s

Don’t be facetious—it’s clear that the other commenter is addressing your question of how the US could “outsource production” if not to China. And of all the subjects on which we could argue about US exceptionalism, heavy pollution during industrialization is one of the hardest to defend; we need only open a history book. EDIT; Also, it’s surprising that you are implying that all industry is equally pollution-causing. A quick search reveals many articles about how especially polluting industries were outsourced to other countries.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
I didn't imply anything of the sort. I just said that the pollution problem was solved by the 80s, and the Chinese outsourcing boom occurred in the 90s. These two issues have no strong connection. The EPA was created in the 70s, while the USA has strongish rule of law like any modern western democracy. California implemented strict clean air requirements then at the same time that were copied country wide (e.g. on vehicle emissions). This was also in the wrong time frame to have "simply outsourced our pollution to China". Consequently, if we are talking about Taiwan or Japan, then no, the polluting industries didn't go there (given what we imported from them). Maybe they meant Canada and Mexico when NAFTA came on line? The mystical "quick search" without any details proves very little.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  Have you ever used Google Scholar? First result: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog174/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470670590.wbe... With these conditions in mind, it is argued that a large proportion of foreign direct investment in less developed countries finances highly polluting and ecologically inefficient manufacturing processes and facilities, many of which are outsourced from the wealthy nations. While this allows for transnational firms headquartered in the global North to treat less developed countries as waste repositories, the commodities produced by these heavily polluting facilities are largely intended for export to high-consuming developed nations. Cross-national studies of less developed countries support these arguments, indicating that foreign direct investment contributes to the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants (Jorgenson, Dick & Mahutga 2007) and the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers (Jorgenson & Kuykendall 2008) in these nations. Complementing cross-national research on foreign direct investment and the environment are case studies of the Maquiladora centers in Mexico (where heavily polluting plants owned by US interests are concentrated) as well as various communities within other less developed countries. These studies provide in-depth illustrations of how transnational economic relationships lead to the treatment of less developed countries as waste repositories for the wealthy nations and contribute to tragic public health and regional ecological problems in these poorer countries (Frey 2003; Pellow 2007). I’m not sure where you are getting your data from, and it’s unsettling that you keep changing the goalposts. I don’t have anything more to say; you need to catch up with mainstream research. EDIT: Ah, perhaps your confusion is over whether people are discussing outsourcing to Japan, Taiwan, and China specifically, or to other countries in general. You have to learn that you can’t get by interpreting other people’s words as uncharitably as possible and then asking them to interpret your own as generously as you’d like. I see this a lot with engineers who don’t interact much with other disciplines—this “works” for proofs and problem sets, not for discussions about less well defined issues. As the other commenter stated, “The comment is about how the US didn't just magically end pollution by better laws, filters and factories, but also by dropping factories.” This is accepted fact; see the article I linked for many references. EDIT#2: Interest piqued by writing this up. Here’s an interesting article addressing Japan and the US specifically: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421507000961 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150... Again, just quick Google Scholar searches; nothing “mystical” about them.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

I didn't imply anything of the sort. I just said that the pollution problem was solved by the 80s, and the Chinese outsourcing boom occurred in the 90s. These two issues have no strong connection. The EPA was created in the 70s, while the USA has strongish rule of law like any modern western democracy. California implemented strict clean air requirements then at the same time that were copied country wide (e.g. on vehicle emissions). This was also in the wrong time frame to have "simply outsourced our pollution to China". Consequently, if we are talking about Taiwan or Japan, then no, the polluting industries didn't go there (given what we imported from them). Maybe they meant Canada and Mexico when NAFTA came on line? The mystical "quick search" without any details proves very little.

jonathanyc 9y ago
Have you ever used Google Scholar? First result: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog174/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470670590.wbe... With these conditions in mind, it is argued that a large proportion of foreign direct investment in less developed countries finances highly polluting and ecologically inefficient manufacturing processes and facilities, many of which are outsourced from the wealthy nations. While this allows for transnational firms headquartered in the global North to treat less developed countries as waste repositories, the commodities produced by these heavily polluting facilities are largely intended for export to high-consuming developed nations. Cross-national studies of less developed countries support these arguments, indicating that foreign direct investment contributes to the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants (Jorgenson, Dick & Mahutga 2007) and the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers (Jorgenson & Kuykendall 2008) in these nations. Complementing cross-national research on foreign direct investment and the environment are case studies of the Maquiladora centers in Mexico (where heavily polluting plants owned by US interests are concentrated) as well as various communities within other less developed countries. These studies provide in-depth illustrations of how transnational economic relationships lead to the treatment of less developed countries as waste repositories for the wealthy nations and contribute to tragic public health and regional ecological problems in these poorer countries (Frey 2003; Pellow 2007). I’m not sure where you are getting your data from, and it’s unsettling that you keep changing the goalposts. I don’t have anything more to say; you need to catch up with mainstream research. EDIT: Ah, perhaps your confusion is over whether people are discussing outsourcing to Japan, Taiwan, and China specifically, or to other countries in general. You have to learn that you can’t get by interpreting other people’s words as uncharitably as possible and then asking them to interpret your own as generously as you’d like. I see this a lot with engineers who don’t interact much with other disciplines—this “works” for proofs and problem sets, not for discussions about less well defined issues. As the other commenter stated, “The comment is about how the US didn't just magically end pollution by better laws, filters and factories, but also by dropping factories.” This is accepted fact; see the article I linked for many references. EDIT#2: Interest piqued by writing this up. Here’s an interesting article addressing Japan and the US specifically: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421507000961 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150... Again, just quick Google Scholar searches; nothing “mystical” about them.