Consequency in Industry Waste

Consequences

In this case, dirty air in the area make the person sick, and sometimes can barely breathe.

Lawrence Summers, who was chief economist of the World Banks and subsequently Secretary of the US Treasury, and now president of Harvard University.

He has argued that the bank should encourage the migration of dirty, polluting industries to the poorer, less-developed countries.

Firstly, the costs of health-impairing pollution depend on the earnings forgone from increased injury and death. Polluting should be done in the countries with the lowest cost, that is, with the lowest wages.

Secondly, because pollution costs rise disproportionately as pollution increases, it makes sense to shift pollution from already dirty places such as Los Angeles to clean ones like the relatively under populated countries in Africa.

Thirdly, people value a clean environment more as their incomes rise. If other things are equals, costs fall if pollution moves from affluent places to less affluent places.

These reasons tell the people what will happen if the World Bank decides to move the rubbish to the small countries, and what would be effecting in those countries.

Consistency

Critics charge that Summers views the world through ‘the distorting prism of market economics’ and that his ideas are ‘a recipe for ruin’.

However, not only the critics want ‘greener’ development in the third world, the premise of implies that an American’s life is worth that of a hundred Kenyans and that society should value an extra years of life for a middle-level manager more than it values and extra year for a blue-collar, production-line worker.

On the other hands, some of economics believe Summers’ idea are basically on the right track. They emphasize that environmental policy always involves trade-offs and that therefore we should seek a balance between costs and benefits.