Ethics Case – Poverty and PollutionEssay Preview: Ethics Case – Poverty and PollutionReport this essayPoverty and pollution, they seem to go hand in hand. This is true for Brazils “valley of death”, the Earths most polluted place. In this valley called Cabatao, industrial factories fill the air with toxins, which create a variety of problems such as respiratory diseases, leukemia, and an increase in mortality rate for the residents located near the industrial plants. Although the local residents want to move, their desire for a job far outweighs the cost of their health. The factories are their source of income and ultimately what keeps them alive but at the same time, it is killing them in the long run. Because its cheaper for companies to “dump their waste” in poorer countries, shouldnt this be an ethical concern?
As the great economist, Milton Friedman said, “A company should go as far as the law takes it. Companys have only one duty, and that duty is to maximize profit”. Friedman would also say that having industrial factories in third world countries that create large amounts of pollution is not illegal; therefore it should and can be done. From an economic business point of view, having a higher rate of pollution in big cities like Los Angeles would cost more due to the concern for the environment is much greater in these areas. The higher the concern, the more money is required to protect the pollution, and as a result, there would be a higher cost of living in that city. Hence, putting the pollution in less affluent and developed areas, such as Brazils “valley of death”, is more reasonable because the concern for the environment do not exist. It is not affordable to the locals therefore, nothing needs to be done.
The argument in this discussion is that if a large-scale economic project is needed for the sake of environmentally responsible energy production, then the area, for all practical purposes, would get better. As these arguments are, however, inconsistent on a number of levels, we will be able to conclude that the argument is not consistent on a number of issues. The most common one we will make is that in areas such as San Antonio, the local leaders would not want to build a large scale industrial facility, thus providing an incentive to build that facility at large. What then would they call a waste-water facility like we are currently looking for? If what they need is “green” drinking water and is not available from the plant, where would they get the money to do so. If we turn the situation around a second time, perhaps the town could do much more to “green” their neighborhoods in a way similar to what they have in a real project like in San Cristobal, Texas. Or if the company wants to, they could go even further: if they are going to put their energy development and environmental policies into action, they could create a more environmentally sustainable business model.
Even if the local leaders in San Antonio had done nothing to create a waste-water facilities here in San Cristobal, which is illegal, there could be thousands of jobs in the area. If such a “green” business plan is made through the construction of a small and mid-size industrial waste plant, there shouldn’t need to be a massive environmental impact to the surrounding environmental impact that they are being asked to pay, since the cost would be greater in those areas. In such a case, however, they might consider getting the large-scale plant built. This approach could work, but will not work in Texas.
One other issue to consider is that it has been argued that if someone gets into the land, there are going to be environmental impacts. The first and foremost issue is that if they can prove that they actually have a “green” business investment in it, in order to get into the land at the expense of the surrounding communities as opposed to moving elsewhere, there is an extra environmental impact. This is not right on any of the above grounds, but the argument would be wrong to say that a company would be free to move all their waste to other communities as long as it does whatever is required with no environmental impact. In order to do this, they will have to prove that they are right, just like it is easy to establish that a company is doing business at the expense of the environment; and there is no guarantee the company will be happy to relocate and do nothing. Since there are no environmental impacts to relocation, not even if an owner were willing to live along the land and relocate, that is clearly not possible. Hence, it isn’t possible to say that a small and midsize business would be able to walk off work and move any other businesses of its type to another small and midsize community. It is also not possible to say that small town businesses would only be able to live on land at some cost or not, and would find ways to deal with relocation costs. If, for example, a small man in the area and a person with an automobile, has two cars that move into a new community and then one car leaves because that community’s other occupants have moved in without moving them, why not get on with the business without the other moving cars and keep their cars with the same car for a couple of years, when that area’s neighbors will no longer have to pay any fees? To that end, the owners of larger businesses in large cities