|
So then, it comes down to:
If some countries are allowed to pollute and others aren't, does it in fact, give one an advantage over the other? Is it measurable or is it just speculation?
I disagree with the contention that pollution is necessary for growth. Although China and India do not pollute as much as say, the US (largest polluter), it's still not a great idea to just let them pollute freely.
I believe that they have a perfect opportunity (and many developing countries for that matter) to put into place good environmental policies that do NOT have to necessarily be uncompetitve or contstraining economically.
Because they are developing, there is still a lot of room for infrastructure building. Since it is in a sense, building from scratch, it should be easier to build a "cleaner, greener, leaner" factory, power plant etc... simply because you don't have to tear an older, existing pollutiing one. Yes, it may be a bit more expensive (I'm assuming) but I believe it should be better in the long run. Studies (sorry, I don't have a source handy, I'm just recalling from memory) in our own country show that green or smart buildings, solar power are all "profitable" in the long run. I don't believe it is a ero-sum game. People argue that environmental policies create job loss. I would argue that new industries are created in its place.
I don't know about global warming, but I do care about breathing clean air and drinking clean water. It really should be simple and based on common sense. Don't pee in the drinking supply or don't dump your garbage in there either. Prevention is far less costly than trying to clean it all up.
|