3 ms·

So a company A pollutes a river, we all learn about the downsides of dumping chemical X into the water and regulate it to 1/100s of what was done. Now company

So a company A pollutes a river, we all learn about the downsides of dumping chemical X into the water and regulate it to 1/100s of what was done. Now company B comes along, and they are allowed to pollute the river way above what is now accepted as OK, but because company A did so, it's allowed?

__rito__ 2y ago
Companies are different from people. Very poor analogy. A better one would be a cities or provinces. And, yes, I believe every city should be given the chance to develop at the risk of short term harm to the environment. People from City B don't deserve to remain poor just because City A had a head-start and polluted the river first. Ideal scenario would be City/State A getting heavily taxed to subsidize City/State B's investment in renewables, people's education and healthcare, rehabilitation of people to other sectors, etc. Would you agree to taxing US and UK each 500-700 billion dollars each year and the money flow to India so that India closes all coal plants and citizens get 90% subsidy in electric cars, or to develop environment friendly steel processing? You wouldn’t agree to it. Why would US/UK taxpayer pay for India's infra and people? Right? So, stop virtue and moral signalling from the high tower you are on. Let India and China develop themselves. It's also very poor looking when it comes from UK. They got rich by exploiting India. And now they just can't say- "remain undeveloped because environment".