Well, if that stuff is bad for the third world countries, then why don't they make environmental laws themselves that stop it?
If they really prefer that, then why should we decide for them, or take away their option to do that?
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.
Also, I'm not implying this is the fault of local workers. It's simply a terrible mess at every angle.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancien...
That is distressingly revisionist, and/or ignorant, history.
You're more than welcome to consult the actual record.
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).
[1] see also: "Structural Adjustment Programs"