Assignment 2: Poverty and Pollution
Charles A. Shipp
Professor Stacy Truelove
BUS 309
Mar. 3, 2012

Assignment 2: Poverty and Pollution
In this case study Cubatão, a poor and developing region in Brazil, is described as a “valley of death” because of the high amounts of pollutants in the area. The local industry is of course the cause of these pollutants which are in turn causing many medical issues for their workforce and surrounding area. Few people are complaining though because the local industry is what is keeping them out of poverty and could not otherwise afford to move elsewhere. On the business side of things the plant was deliberately put in this area because of the fact that it is a poor and developing area. Businesses look at it from a dollar and cents view where it is cheaper and easier to operate in a poorer area rather than a developed area. This view point does not place all human beings on a level playing field it basically states that those who are from richer and more developed countries are valued more than those of whom live in not so fortunate countries.
Businesses make the argument that polluting in a third world country is financially better to help keep costs down. The premise of this argument is that operating in a low income country means lower wages and little to no environmental controls that will be enforced. As a business model it makes perfect sense to take advantage of paying lower wages in order to produce your product as well as avoid paying fines for polluting as you would in a rich country. This will help keep the cost of the product down so more people will purchase it. There is also the fact that rich and poor countries have different concerns when it comes to the environment, “environmentalists in affluent nations worry about protecting endangered species, preserving biological diversity, saving the ozone layer, and preventing climate change, whereas their counterparts in poorer countries are more concerned with dirty air, dirty water, soil erosion, and deforestation” (Shaw, 2010). In a Country such as the United States of America, locals are more concerned with their health and the health of the future generations as well as preserving the environment and its natural inhabitants; while places like Cubatão have locals that are less concerned with the environment because they are happy to have jobs that will keep them out of poverty. This is because more affluent nations have developed so much that they are trying to preserve as much of the natural environment as possible because there is little of it left and the destruction of that environment could lead to deadly consequences. On the other hand people in under developed countries are poor and do not possess the political or financial means to deal with pollutants, they are more concerned with jobs and development.
Most experts have said that pollution is the price of progress, meaning the more we grow and develop economically the more we pollute our environment. In his article, Czech gives an analogy of this by using a doctor and patient scenario.
“Let’s say the doctor has an overweight patient. The patient was small as a child and developed an obsession with gaining weight. It’s hard to shift mental gears. Fully mature now, this patient’s top goal is growing even more! This has led to all kinds of problems: bad knees, high blood pressure, and sleep apnea to mention a few. Now imagine the doctor prescribing more pills for each new ailment, never saying a thing about the patient’s obsession with growth. Similarly, we have a society – a readership – that considers economic growth the top priority. This unhealthy obsession has led to all kinds of problems: biodiversity loss, climate change, and ocean acidification to name a few” (Czech, 2012).
It is clear that more developed nations contribute to more pollution than their poorer counterparts. China and the United States of America are two countries that are well developed and industrious as well as heavy polluters. However, where China does not enforce many environmental protections the United States of America does. Americans make up a small percentage of the world population and emit more pollution per capita than any other country so in order to not destroy ourselves or others we have created agencies to enforce regulations that will keep pollution at a minimum. As a well-developed country though, America can afford to create agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency whereas the poorer nations just do not have the GDP to do so. In order for a third world country to develop environmental protections they must first have a growing economy. Businesses are always looking to poorer countries for their production and manufacturing facilities because the cost of labor is cheaper as well as a lowered expectation of benefits and environmental concerns. Most locals in these countries are more concerned with putting food on the table and living a better life style with the companies that come to their region with plenty of jobs rather than worrying about the environment. This is what big businesses around the world look for and exploits; ethical or not, that is the way the business world works. If you were to implement the same environmental protections and pollution controls used in the United States in every country it would hinder progress in lower developed nations.
“Developing countries often have trouble implementing regulations devised by developed countries because the standards are too strict, change too quickly, and are not always clearly supported by scientific evidence. The general cost of implementation is also a major barrier. Enforcement of these standards is feeble among developing countries because they are short of funding, have inadequate infrastructure and lack a stake in the process because they are standard-takers instead of standard-makers. For environmental regulation to be fair and effective, developing countries must stake a claim in the standard-setting process” (Center for International Development as Harvard University, 2004).
All people in this world have a right to a clean and livable environment though. We all deserve to live in an environment where we can all breathe easier and trust the water that we drink. In time maybe every country will on this planer will agree on standards for environmental protection that will help us all and preserve our way of life as well of the lives of every other creature in this world. We should not have to suffer environmental and health risks on behalf of a business trying to pump out its product as fast as they can with little to no concern except for how much profit they can make with the least amount of expenses.
The wealthiest nations of the world should set an example by investing in greener industries and taking some of those industries to poorer nations. This will help these developing countries economically and environmentally. The initial investment in a developing country would be much cheaper than in a wealthier nation and would afford the locals with more opportunities than they could ever dream of. On the business side of things the wages will more than likely still be lower than the average wages of an American worker; also there may be more loyalty and harder work ethics from the local community for bringing in better jobs which give them a better standard of living. It would send the wrong message if the wealthy nations of the world set standards for themselves but then turn around and enter a poor nation to do business and totally disregard the standards of their home country. This could be a center point for friction and distrust and could have a domino effect when it comes to breaking into another foreign market.
The business world and the natural environment are without a doubt two completely different entities that must find a way to coexist in this world. Human beings are just a blip on the timeline of this planet yet in that small amount of time we have managed to nearly ruin the environment of which we were spawned from and lived in long before the creation of industry. Since the birth of industry we have plowed through the Earth for resources to be produced on a massive scale, most of which are non-renewable or non-biodegradable. However, in our fast paced evolution we have grown a little wiser and are taking measures to preserve our planet and look into alternative sources of power. There is only so much that a hand full of countries can do though if other countries are not on the same page or do not have the political or financial means to help in the effort to preserve, not the American way of life but the human way of life. There may not be a perfect solution but with the help of some great minds and the wealth of the greatest countries there might be a brighter tomorrow for future generations to come.

References
Center for International Development as Harvard University. (2004, May). Retrieved February 28, 2013, from Global Trade Negotiations Home Page: http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/environment.html
Czech, B. (2012, October 31). The Fallacy Behind Environmental Protection and Economic Growth. Retrieved February 27, 2013, from Truth dig: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_fallacy_behind_environmental_protection_and_economic_growth_20121031/
Shaw, W. H. (2010). Business Ethics. Mason: Cengage Learning.