[PEN-L:1822] Re: Re: Environmental Quality in Developing Countries

[michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

A bit unformatted from a telnet connection:

Brad De Long wrote:

 The "no" argument is that it adds $700 or so to the cost of the
automobile.
 That $700 could--if it were used wisely--be devoted to upgrading the
sewer
 system, or building a water purification plant, or expanding the
electrical
 grid so that smoke emissions from firewood could be reduced, or importing
 medical supplies to treat people once they have gotten cholera. Any of
 these would do more good than harm would be done by the extra CO and SO2
 emitted by the taxicab over the course of its life.

Brad, the problem is that governments like Ghana are not democratically
elected.  High ranking officials
can make big bucks by agreeing to have others accept the brunt of the
pollution.  Even in the U.S., we see
native american "leaders" willingly "accepting" toxic and nuclear waste.

In addition, much of the environmental degradation is related to people
driving people from their
traditional means of support -- an ongoing primitive accumulation.  Then,
when pressed to the brink of
disaster, we ask them if they would want to "make a deal."


 There is also a fourth argument: What business is it of anyone in the
first
 world telling people in developing countries that they can or cannot
 pollute?


Turn this around.  Why should Shell tell the Nigerians that they "have to
pollute"?

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx