7 ms·
Depends. Sdf shelters and win turbines? Sure. Facilities emitting unhealthy fumes or dumping pollution in the water? That would set a dangerous precedent wh
by BiteCode_dev 3y ago
Depends.
Sdf shelters and win turbines?
Sure.
Facilities emitting unhealthy fumes or dumping pollution in the water?
That would set a dangerous precedent where society would validate the behavior as long as there is money in the mix.
It already does mind you. But at least is considered wrong at the moment.
What would have happened to the asbestos scandal is instead of cleaning the stuff, we just paid compensations? Carnage.
- rickydroll 3y agoI would argue for mixed use of hazardous industries and residential/commercial properties. There is a long history of forcing the pollution generate through your daily life onto lower income communities. If you take a poop, the sewage treatment plant should be in your neighborhood. Drink water, the water treatment plant should be in your neighborhood, use electricity, electricity generation in your neighborhood. In other words, don't force your crap on to somebody else.
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoOk if it applies to the rich as well, which it won't.
- rickydroll 3y agoYou are quite right. It wouldn't even though it should. The refusal of the rich to clean up their own shit is behind environmental injustices.