Words: 1469
Determine the ethical implications of business polluting in third world country. Explain your rationale. The Third World refers to the poorer and undeveloped countries of the world. Often, these countries have extremely poor environmental situations. Countries in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia are the greatest victims of this environmental inequality. In addition to problems created by development and industrialization, poorer nations also suffer environmental difficulties caused by poverty and war, among other causes. Many environmental problems arise in the Third World.
Air pollution, water pollution, deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, and poisoning of the environment are among the largest of these. (pollution problems on third world , 1999) The businesses that are polluting in a third world country are the businesses that think that because the third world countries are poor and under developed. They do not have the restriction that the U. S. Does to prevent business from doing everything that they can to the environment, These countries are left with making decision on whether are not to eat are having clean environment. What do you think they are hosing to do?
We sometime take advantage of people because of the situation they are in at the time. The Western countries take advantage of these Third World countries. They dump their trash and other hazardous waste into these Third World countries. The First World companies will go into these countries and build plants, which will pollution the air, in Third World nations to not have to deal with the regulations that they would face at home. Some of the transnational corporations that produce hazardous chemicals look at as overly dangerous in the First World find an acceptable market in the Third World.
There, governments cannot restrict usage of these chemicals. They are trying to provide a way for its citizens to make a living. How can this be fair? How can these business live with themselves. What I have stated time and time again it always comes back to money. Suggest the reasons a business may conduct operations in a third world country and disregard any standards of pollution control. We see the pollution problem affecting the whole world. Industries are going overseas because the cost of labor is a lot cheaper. Therefore all they want to do is make a big profit by paying less and acquiring quality goods and services. Elution problems on third world , 1999) Industries don’t care about the employees never the less about the environment. Laws and regulations a lot different in third world countries and there is a lot of corruption too; with this been said if anyone complaints money is the solution. Also as I mention before countries of the Third World struggle with population growth, poverty, famines, and wars, their residents are discovering the environmental effects of these problems, in the form of increasing air, water, and land pollution.
Industrialized nations often dump wastes in developing countries where here is little or no environmental regulation, and governments may collect considerable fees for accepting their garbage. And not only that some of this garbage can be hazards not only for the environment but to the individuals leave close to this dump sites this third world countries would accept garbage for money this is hard to believe. This industries move to third world countries because there is not pollution controlled laws.
Therefore industries are not allowed to manufacture of produce certain things their only option is to move if they want to still be in business. (gale, 2005) It has been said that pollution is the price of progress. Assess the connection between economic progress and development, on the one hand, and pollution controls and environmental protection, on the other. The optimal level of pollution is supposed to be the level at which the costs to the company of cleaning up the pollution equal the cost Of environmental damage caused by that pollution.
Fifth pollution charge is equivalent to the cost of environmental damage then the theory says that the company will clean up its pollution until any further incremental reduction in pollution loud cost more than the remaining charge, that is until it is cheaper to pay the charge than reduce the pollution. This might seem to be less than optimal solutions to the community but economists argue that the polluter is better off than if it had paid to eliminate the pollution altogether and the community is no worse off because it is being compensated by the firm for the damage through the payments to the government.
In theory the payments made by firms in the form of charges can be used to correct the environmental damage they cause. (ebbed, 1996) Support the argument that human beings have a moral right to a livable environment regardless of the country they live in. Every person in every community has the right to health, and to a safe and healthy environment. Unfortunately, these rights are often not respected. Many people suffer from serious health problems caused by a scarcity of basic necessities and an excess of harmful substances.
The most vulnerable people are those who have low status because of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, class, caste, poverty, or for other reasons. They usually suffer first, and worst. The struggle to live in a healthy, safe, productive, and enjoyable environment by immunities whose rights are not well respected by people in power is sometimes called the struggle for environmental justice. As part Of the human rights; each human being has a moral right to life and to a livable environment.
Also is not fair for these individuals from third world countries to suffer from more things they’re already struggling and then u have industries polluting their environment. Everyone should be able to have a good environment to live in. Also something that caught my attention is the even though here in the United States of America we have good environment individuals don’t not how to take care of it. For example people throwing garbage out their cars windows or disposing of chemicals in their back yard. This types of thing can cause damage to our environment.
Take a position on whether nations have an obligation to provide poorer nations with, or help them develop, greener industries and sources of energy. Explain your rationale. Although some of this nations are poor they can also be rich because of natural resource for example oil, gold and expensive minerals. Many third world countries have been able to be successful cause of natural resources. Think that if a nation is wealthy and individuals are happy, then it should help other nations because today for them and tomorrow for us. We never know when we are going to need someone’s help.
Therefore it is not an obligation to other nations but its good to show support. The United States of America is known for helping others but I know there is always an interest or a agreement to repay the USA Also increasingly, through globalization, many countries have become dependent on each other. While some countries are endowed with better quality resources, there have to be satisfied with current resources. History has shown that the poorer countries are usually those more vulnerable to disasters (economically and socially) and are less equipped to overcome these disasters.
Rich countries, therefore, are consistently required to support those poorer countries through international aid. However, the right type of aid is more important than the quantity of aid. Rich countries should invest in the human capital of poor countries, provide defense against wars, and help develop the skills of the people instead of simply providing donations. There should be agreements and follow-ups on how the aid is being used. Propose a plan for uniform global pollution control standards and how you would enforce them.
It’s hard to say how something can be done about this the procedures and norms are in place now. I think pollution is always going to be an issue and it’s going to be too late when individuals try to help with the problem. The only thing can suggest is to maybe have dump sites in out of space and if the garbage tries to enter earth of other planet it would burn anyways. But to enforce new regulation it’s going to be a challenge hopefully hey can come out with a solution soon.
Industries are not going to stop producing thing while the demand is high. And if we told invidious that this is harmful for the earth that they need to Stop they would just laugh.