Poverty and Pollution Case Study

The following sample essay on Poverty and Pollution Case Study. Meaning they go there and pollute the country with all those toxic waste chemicals and the land, air and water is then contaminated so bad that the people who live there end up sick from eating, drinking or breathing these toxins. I don’t know if they feel that because they are hiring the natives to work for them and help pollute it is k to do this in their countries.

These companies may think they are helping them with jobs but what’s the use of working when you’re going to wind up sick or dead for inhaling the fumes from the machines that they use. The companies know for a fact that what they are doing is harmful to these people who have to live there. Its unhealthy for these people to walk outside, eat or drink so what makes them think it’s a good idea to work around the chemicals.

Businesses say that this is good for the economy, when in fact they know they are killing the environment and putting people lives in danger.

These companies are only for themselves, endangering humans and nature just to make money is unethical and immoral, and knowingly doing so is deceiving. Suggest the reasons a business may conduct operations in a third world country and disregard any standards of pollution control. That’s a simple answer, they do it to make a profit, and because they can do it without any penalty.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified

Proficient in: Environmental Science

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

If they do get any consequences, they just get a fine and a slap on the wrist and the companies continue to do what they do best, manufacture where they want to and keep up their revenue.

They will continue to go over to Brazil, Africa or China and manufacture their products, get free or cheap labor to help them pollute and destroy and they will make their profits. They don’t care that the waste they leave behind causes diseases and death. According to the director of National Economic Counsel Lawrence Summers, “banks should encourage the migration of dirty, polluting industries to the poorer, less developed countries”. He also goes to say that “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage countries is impeccable”.

Business Ethics: Cap. 7 Business in Society) He would rather see this country die off for the sake of making money. These countries don’t deserve to be treated in this manner, these are still humans that we are speaking Of and they should not have to suffer because they live in a country that isn’t considered of value. It has been said that pollution is the “price of progress”, Access connections between economic progress and development on one hand and pollution control and environment protection on the other hand. Around the world, the notation that pollution is the “price f progress” has become antiquated, faced with ever mounting cost to human health and economic losses in agriculture and forestry, countries everywhere are discovering that pollution prevention is a sound investment”. (World Watch Institute) Economist say, “The cure for poverty is economic growth and sound environmental policy is necessary for durable growth. ” Environmental damage can hinder the productivity of the economy and can reduce the effects of health in these countries.

The case study gives an example of how the people who live there health is affected due to the waste that takes place. Billion people lack in developing countries lack access to clean water, while 1. 7 billion suffer from inadequate sanitation. This estimation is so sad to know that these people have to live in such conditions because they are poor and can’t get out of this situation. Economic progress and development and pollution control want to achieve the same goal which is making the environment better in the countries that are underprivileged.

Support the argument that human beings have a moral right to a livable environment regardless of the country they live in. I definitely believe that human beings would have the right to live in a hazardous free environment. The major pollution is in the air, land and water. “In the U. S air pollution causes as many as 50,000 deaths per year and cost as much as $40 billion a year in health care and lost productivity’. (World Watch Institute) I just don’t understand why these corporations feel its k to pollute and dump in poor countries, these are lives that they are endangering, and they are a living species just like us over in America.

Why put lives in jeopardy for some money? In some of these countries walking outside is a death sentence. They breathe in toxins like benzene or sulfur dioxide and their lungs inflame and it restricts the breathing. Humanity is losing the battle for clean air: this pollution is taking a toll on the environment, the economy and most important the humans that have to endure those living conditions. Human beings rich or poor deserve to live in a place where they can raise their children without worrying about them dying from fumes or toxins in the area they live in.

In the case study Poverty and Pollution, a young mother stated that the children are ill and moieties they can barely breathe, now tell me what is wrong with that statement? Then she goes to say that she would like to move from that area but she can’t afford to do that. This is so sad because since she is poor, she has to live in unbearable conditions with her child and no government or billionaire will help her get out of that situation. They just have to suck it up and deal with it.

These corporations need to find a secluded area in some part of the world and manufacture instead of playing GOD and giving pee a death sentence by shortening their life span. Take a position on whether wealthy nations have an obligation to Provo( poorer nations with help or help them develop, greener industries and of energy. I feel that wealthy nations should pitch in and help these poop countries out. They deserve to live in a clean and sanitary environment. Nations should send in people to help clean up the dirty areas so that the natives there can breathe, eat and drink from their natural habitats.

I the that the better idea would be to move the people out of the dumping grounds into a cleaner section of that country, that way they won’t have Orr about any ailments that follow the hazardous waste that being polluted in the air or waters. Nations with money should do more to hell the less fortunate, because you never know when your country could be next target for dumping sites and pollution so they need to lend a hand money to help these countries preserve the land and out of poverty so don’t have to live life this way.

Purpose a plan for uniform global pollute( control standards and how you would enforce them. The plan I would propose would be to have major corporations clean up the pollutions the UT in the poor countries. They could use scrubbers, filters and catalytic converters to control emissions. I would incorporate taxing emissions; t taxing could be an incentive to minimize pollution. They less you pollute lower your tax rate and vice verse. For the corporations that choose not follow the regulations for polluting would be fined for whatever offense committed.

I would also state the amount of polluting that can be done country by one company. You would have four dumping permits per ye. One country; once you have manufactured you have 6 months to a year hat area cleaned up. If that is not satisfied that company would be fine’ doubled and their taxes would be raised when they renew their permits IS how I would plan my pollution control that way corporations would SE seriousness of polluting and endangering lives.

We must control pollute( our environment, whether it’s in a poor or rich country. The government some other private companies have made some efforts to clean up the: countries. According to the Library of Economic and Liberty, “some thirty billion has went on air pollution abatement, seventeen billion on water elution control and eight billion for a variety of solid waste, hazardous waste, and other programs. The money is a great start to the beginning better life for these poverty stricken countries, some of the companies v, take advantage if they don’t have regulations enforced upon them. I fee sooner or later these things will change and these countries like Brazil, ( and Africa will have new regulations in place so that these corporations do right by them.