4 ms·
> So the question isn't whether you have a procedural right to stop pollution, it's how to negotiate the balance of competing interests. A balance where the wa
by mandmandam 2y ago
> So the question isn't whether you have a procedural right to stop pollution, it's how to negotiate the balance of competing interests.
A balance where the water isn't extremely polluted would seem to be a given, no?
For hundreds of thousands of years, if someone came to your village and refused to stop shitting in the well, they'd be kicked out or worse.
Washing some clothes in the river, or a bit of bathing? Fine. Dumping thousands of gallons of industrial chemicals into the water table? I consider that a violation of not just my right, but the rights of all living things which use that water. It's heinous, and (I would have thought) clearly, obviously, utterly indefensible.
- IncreasePosts 2y agoWe should have a law against that then.
- rbanffy 2y ago> clearly, obviously, utterly indefensible. If the past decade taught me anything is that people who don’t feel shame can’t be shamed into doing something obviously right. Or prevent them from doing something obviously wrong. You need laws on all levels for the obvious things as well.