| >So... your okay with Chinese kids with heart defects, kidney and liver cancer. Show me where I said that. Of course not. You seem to be ok with every country that hopes to participate in the technological economy having their own contaminated region. Step back for a second. Think of the earth like a single-unit closed system. Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two? Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to. You're also making the argument that somehow we'd have the political will to both institute tariffs that protect the industry AND police those industries when they harm our environment. Guess what buddy, those are contradictory ideals. The USA isn't some magical place where we can defy these incentives. Your assertion that we'd be better at managing waste here is especially fantastical considering the present EPA chairman. Scott Pruitt has undermined the protection of our environment at every opportunity. [1] 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemical... |
it seems like a logical implication, unless you're also entertaining the idea of production ending altogether.
> Would we rather have 195 regions contaminated with TCE or one/two?
i'm not sure, would 195 be better, or have some advantages? will all of these 'regions' be identical?
> Your petty nationalism would force those kids to stay in their country AND have them deal with the toxic waste of their protectionist government-subsidized industry because they'll have no other choice but to.
and you advocating that china be the location of choice for toxic waste will surely result in something different?