Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrischen | Hacker News Reader

Well of course. Where do you think all of China's pollution comes from? Comes from outsourced US production and US demand of products.

Anytime there's a mismatch in laws and a lack of appropriate tariffs, it just asks for an externalization of cost and pollution.

View on HN

And it was all done in the name of improving "human rights":

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N27/china.27w.html

Every human has a right ... to be poisoned on the job!

> all of China's pollution comes from? Comes from outsourced US production

All of China's pollution? Citation please.

The US isn't China's only customer. They sell things worldwide, particularly to Europe.

We are likely the largest single nation to consume these products though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa...

Nation, maybe, but EU does more overall.

Give it a few years to down size and we can revisit that fact.

Well, if that stuff is bad for the third world countries, then why don't they make environmental laws themselves that stop it?

Generally because environmentalism is luxury for wealthy countries. When you stack up carcinogens that may or may not kill you in four decades against feeding your family today, the food will always win.

I disagree; the laws are lax because oligarchies in developing countries typically don't get harmed by dangerous working conditions. The people with the power to enforce safe workplace laws have no external incentive; it is at odds with maximizing their cut of the revenue.

> ...laws are lax because oligarchies in developing countries typically don't get harmed by dangerous working conditions.

This holds true even for developed nations. If a particular company or industry can skirt workers rights, environmental laws, etc. and bear the impact as merely a negative return, they will.

> The people with the power to enforce safe workplace laws have no external incentive...

Right, and the only force which affects such oligarchies is unionization. However, as gozur88 said above, feeding your family is more important than any potential health impacts. And when you're in a situation where thousands of others will gladly assume your position, regardless of the cost, there is no feasibly to unionized striking.

Unionization fails when an oligarchy can reliably imprison union leaders. Looking at the track record of developing countries, this is the typical path, not a lack of interest by local workers.

Unionization fails for many reasons. Even in the US, with all of our protective laws, Wal-Mart is and remains a union-busting force.

Also, I'm not implying this is the fault of local workers. It's simply a terrible mess at every angle.

I don't think so.

The problem is environmental regulations raise the cost of doing business. Which is fine, if you live in a place like the US, say, or Australia. But if you live in a country where people are already going hungry, a small increase in costs means people on the margins are going to literally starve to death.

Ok, so, what you are saying is, that we as privileged first world countries, should remove their ability to choose to feed their family?

If they really prefer that, then why should we decide for them, or take away their option to do that?

Oh, I agree people should make their own decisions on this kind of stuff. I was just pointing out why things are the way they are.

Because the foreign companies are stuffing wads of cash into the hands of the appropriate officials, either directly or indirectly,

Blatant disregard for environment did not start with western companies, "development" of land was already a disaster under Mao.

Mao and his infamous Dark Satanic Mills.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancien...

"In China" was implied, not that I'm convinced that there was great environmental concern before that, even if the means to pollute were lacking compared to the post-Industrial Revolution west.

It seems that you're implying blatent disregard for the environment and pollution began (and possibly ended) in China.

That is distressingly revisionist, and/or ignorant, history.

You're more than welcome to consult the actual record.

> It seems that you're implying blatent disregard for the environment and pollution began (and possibly ended) in China.

Absolutely not. What I am saying is that the protection of environment was not, until recent times, particularly high on the agenda of the Chinese government (and that the Maoist period was particularly terrible in this regard).

Obviously, the West, being the first to be industrialized, has been responsible for most of the global pollution until now (and by outsourcing some of its most polluting industries to China, has also a share of responsibility for the pollution in China).

That's what the Investor State Dispute Settlements[1] are for.

[1] see also: "Structural Adjustment Programs"

Externalization is highly desirable to _all_ interests. The interest of manufacturers is self evident. The interest of environmentalists has a level of indirection; without the frictionless externalization available to manufacturers the process of feathering our domestic environmental regulatory nest that has been cruising along mostly unimpeded for decades now would face a great deal more scrutiny and resistance.

As it is many domestic manufacturers are mostly indifferent to the regulatory state; they have no problem with the US evolving into a giant national park because they have a perfectly good alternative.

This isn't some abstract concept. As recently a the 2016 election I recall video ricocheting around the right wing echo chamber of Trump opponents at Portland protests pointing out that the last thing they want to see are those 'dirty factories' operating in the US again, employing deplorables. Every single one of them was armed with one or more Asian made portable computers, but that sort of hypocrisy never registers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com