That completely lets the companies off the hook for dangerous and unnecessary pollution. Even if nobody was around, they should have an ethylene oxide scrubber. That is a major source of teratogenic emissions per the article.
Also, it strikes me as extremely speculative on your part that this is a zoning issue. How do you know that these plants didn't shift product mixes or expand after there were established communities nearby, or that the companies provided incorrect information to regulators? Unless you want to fund armies of scientists for the regulator to validate the truth of claims made on submissions then you have to blame the companies that submit false data. That seems far more likely than your assumption.
I’m responding to a post which mentioned zoning issues. Generally, this is an article about “sacrifice zones” - I’m confused.
Putting zoning aside, companies have no motives outside of growth and profit. That’s why governments exist to protect the population they represent. From people, companies, foreign invaders, etc.
Not even profit these days, just growth. For-market-capitalization companies, profits are just to look good on the balance sheet, what you want is revenues, really.
Houston is imfamous for not having zoning. That's how you get an industrial plant next to a school next to a mall next to housing next to a cattle feed lot.
Given how zoning utterly ratfucked half the west coast into being all single-family hellscapes; I'm not inclined to say Houston should start having American-style zoning codes. Zoning goes way beyond safety regulation and includes all sorts of things that should never have been brought under democratic control. If we want to keep housing from being built next to polluting factories, then that should be the EPA's job[0] to enforce.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the other places didn’t have similar features. Responsible zoning, imho, would put residential far away from industrial, especially when they have smoke stacks or other offgasing.
Also, it strikes me as extremely speculative on your part that this is a zoning issue. How do you know that these plants didn't shift product mixes or expand after there were established communities nearby, or that the companies provided incorrect information to regulators? Unless you want to fund armies of scientists for the regulator to validate the truth of claims made on submissions then you have to blame the companies that submit false data. That seems far more likely than your assumption.