June 02, 2013
Determine the ethical implications of businesses polluting in a third world country. Professor Summers argues that the bank should migrate of dirty, polluting industries to go the poorest countries. His implication is inhuman, Just because the countries has a lower cost of living doesn’t give them the right to go a polluted them. The Third World refers to the poorer and undeveloped countries of the world. Repeatedly, these countries have enormously poor ecological situations. In many Third World nations, pollution is unrestricted. Numerous other environmental problems are also not addressed by the government. Frequently, creating and enforcing environmental policy would be cost-effectively terrible for a poor country. Then they are forced to choose between buying food and having a clean environment. The more critical concern is almost always the previous. Richer Western countries take advantage of the dilemma of Third World countries. They dump junk and dangerous waste in developing countries. First World companies may also build plants, which release significant pollution, in Third World nations to avoid the policy these companies would face at home.
Suggest the reasons a business may conduct operations in a third word county and disregard any standards of pollution control.
The reasons business conduct operations in third word country are because the labor and wages conditions. In the United State has a stronger value to safety and regulation regarding labor and wages for the workers. Also an environmental consideration is a factor for these companies to conduct in third word countries. The world is concern about environment issues; Businesses not only have a responsibility to ensure adequate environmental safety precautions, but also can be held liable for errors under their watch. If you do business in developing countries, keep in mind that many countries lack standards for environmental safety. Professor Summers reasons for business conducting in third word countries are also because pollution cost increases as pollution rises and it only make sense to keep on dirtying a country that already has enough pollution that a first world country that has none. I understand that making a profit is essential for keeping a business running but not against human life. Years back we were not aware of the damages being done to our environment but know we are aware and need to stop it.
It has been said that pollution is the price of progress. Assess the connections between economic progress and development, on the one hand, and pollution controls and environmental protection, on the other.
An economic gross when new invention occurs, nuclear power, when Russia and Japan had a catastrophe due to nuclear power, and damage millions of people and their harvests. Also the petroleum field that digs from the sea is big production to the economic but when they cause devastation in the fauna and the sea creatures’. One of the big corporation NASA in economic they create big events, satellites and technology but there are junks that are left behind in the sky with in time it will be more expensive for the environment.
The way pollution controls and environment protection are hand and hand because they are often built into the production process which makes any estimation of their cost extremely difficult. By making the cost higher is helping by protecting the environment. In addition, pollution controls often discourage new venture and production, but because the value of what is not produced is not seen, no one currently estimates such indirect expenses. The most costly and complex federal pollution control policy has been the motor vehicle emissions control program.
Support the argument that human beings have a moral right to a livable environment…