2 ms·
"Also forcing the industry not to put polutants in the water and air has it's cost" it's the reverse -> allowing them to pollute and cause damage has it's cost
by ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Also forcing the industry not to put polutants in the water and air has it's cost"
it's the reverse -> allowing them to pollute and cause damage has it's cost, if a child with astma dies of air pollution, they aren't paying compensation. When someone got lead poisoning or died of black lung, companies wheren't paying for that either. If that person's family now needs support and welfare, if the pollution needs cleaning up, it's always the taxpayer picking up the tab
- simion314 5y agoYes, that was my point sorry for my bad sentence. Just wanted to explain this extremist capitalists that we already make products and services more expensive by forcing companies to respect basic human rights so it won't be a completely new thing to consider CO2 as a dangerous substance and demand companies to pay a tax or even forbid shit like bitcoin where from what I read there are better alternatives. Edit, so from my understanding OP was selfish and thinking at his personal costs and not the costs for current children or future generations.