FANDOM


AboutEdit

Debate topic: "Are developed countries exploiting developing countries as pollution havens?"

More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquiladora, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_haven_hypothesis (and use the rest of the web, a well as your brains, to gather more fuel for your arguments).

Editing instructions Edit

  • To add an argument, click the edit link next to a blank argument section below. You may wish to change the name of the argument from "argument X" to something more descriptive. Then write a brief summary of your argument in 2-3 sentences and SIGN IT with --~~~~. Unsigned arguments will be removed.
  • To reply to an argument (e.g. to argue against it), click the edit link next to an existing argument and edit using indentations to distinguish your reply from the original argument. Indentations are created by prefixing your comments with stars (*). One star is for a 1st level indent. Two stars (**) is for a 2nd level indent (i.e. replying to a reply). Three stars (***) is for a 3rd level indent (i.e. replying to a reply to a reply). Your reply should be brief (2-3 sentences) and SIGNED with --~~~~ (unsigned replies will be removed).
  • An edit conflict occurs when two people edit the same section at the same time. One of them loses their edits. The loser is the slowest. That means: edit fast and save frequently.
  • To make it clear which side you are on, please preface all your edits with one of the following templates: {{pro}} {{con}} {{neutral}} (they produce the results Symbol support vote Symbol oppose vote Symbol neutral vote when typed properly).
  • An example of a syntactically correct edit:
** {{con}} I don't agree, because my mum says it isn't right. --~~~~ 
When published, this looks like:
* Symbol oppose vote I don't agree, because my mum says it isn't right. --Username (talk) 15:57, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

YesEdit

Argument 1 Edit

Symbol support vote Developed countries exploit developing countries as they take advantage of missing environmental legislation and control. This leads to serious environmental pollution/cathastrophes. Example: Waste scandals in the 1980s. --193.174.11.19 10:57, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Anna,Ole

  • Symbol oppose vote The requirements of the Basel Convention have been made more strict, in order to protect developing countries from exploitation. Therefore waste scandals like in the 1980s are unlikely. --193.174.11.19 12:19, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Katrin und Kerry
    • Symbol support vote The USA, for example, haven't ratified the Basel Convention yet! Therefore they export waste to many countries and are not punished for that. --193.174.11.19 11:22, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Eva and Till
      • Symbol oppose vote Nobody forces the developing countries to take the waste of the USA. 193.174.11.19 12:24, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Katrin und Kerry

((****)) Symbol support vote But the USA want to get rid of their waste and use their political power to do what they want. --193.174.11.19 11:29, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Eva and Till

Symbol support vote If the processing of hazardous waste would actually create substantial wealth, the developing would probably not miss this chance of profiting from this process themselves. Thus, it is problable that the environmental risk outweighs the prospected profits. --193.174.11.19 11:33, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anna,OleEdit

Argument 3 Edit

Symbol support voteDeveloped countries exploit developing countries because these poor countries need money and therefore they accept each type of waste no matter how toxic it is. --193.174.11.19 10:57, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Eva and Till

  • Symbol oppose vote We don't agree on this. Developing countries are not obliged to accept the waste, they take it because they want to. It is a mutual benefit. They take it, because they think they can make profit out of it 193.174.11.19 11:08, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Julia and Alina
    •  Symbol support vote The "benefit" has to be considered critically. It is not a whole nation that benefits but single people/companies. The danger of environmental pollution however is carried by the whole population. --193.174.11.19 11:14, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anna,Ole
    • Symbol support vote The developing countries are in lack of the knowledge regaring toxic waste. And therefore they don't know how to handle it proporly. For example some use it as furniture.  --Kristinajansen (talk) 11:17, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Jeanette+Kristina
    • Symbol support vote As a consequence, the people in the developing countries will be harmed. Developed countries take advantage of the unknowingness of the people in the developing countries. --193.174.11.19 11:27, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Theresa+Nele
          • Symbol oppose vote It can hardly be the responsibility of a corporation/country to advice the citizens of other countries how to handle waste for which a contract has been signed by their governments. The governments have full information as to what they are handling and are therefore responsible to share this with the public/the people likely to get in contact with the waste. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 11:29, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
      • Symbol oppose vote The waste is harming the world's entire population and not only people from developing countries. 193.174.11.19 11:32, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Julia

Argument 4 Edit

Symbol support vote It is exploitment, as companies from developed countries are using the lacking economic possibilities of developing countries, as an excuse to dump waste. In their opinion it is "support" of the local economy.--Kristian-h (talk) 11:04, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anders/Kristian

  • Symbol oppose vote The developing countries taking on waste disposal contracts have chosen to do so and through this they gain a tremendous economic advantage in comparison to the case where they do not take on these contracts. The do not only gain profits, but also knowledge is transferrred, through the construction of recycling plants etc.--Mojojojo89 (talk) 11:08, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote Is an economic advantage worth destroying the whole environment? What is the value of money, if you can´t drink your water? --Kristian-h (talk) 11:16, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anders/kristian
      • Symbol oppose vote Ultimately not only the local environment is destroyed. Waste dumping affects the whole world and not only developing countries. No matter where you dump the waste, it will affect everybody. 193.174.11.19 11:20, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Alina/Julia
        • Symbol oppose vote If recycling is conducted properly and according to the Basel Convention, the impact on the environment should be minimal or as extensive as it is in developing countries. Thereby environmental impact is limited and the gains outweigh the costs by far. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 11:23, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote So actually Alina + Julia agree with us? --Kristian-h (talk) 11:32, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anders/Kristian
      • ** Symbol support vote Do you honestly believe that developing countries are able to dispose toxic waste as properly and cleanly as developed countries?

      • ** Symbol oppose vote no we do not agree @ Anders/Kristian. There is no exploitation, because all the waste exported to developing countries will return to the developed countries someday or in some form.  (e.g. Inuit breast milk case)193.174.11.19 11:46, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Julia/Alina

Argument 5Edit

Argument 6Edit

Symbol support voteThey do exist! Companies relocate their production to other countries due to less strict environmental regulations. --Kristinajansen(talk) 11:01, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Jeanette+KristinaEdit

  • Symbol oppose vote According to the Basel Convention it is prohibited to export waste to countries to countries where proper recycling facilities are not available.--Mojojojo89 (talk) 11:11, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote If companies move their production to developing countries, this creates value and jobs in the developing country. This value creation helps develop the countries. There is no exploitation of the less strict regulations. --Katrin und Kerry
    • Symbol support vote People in developing countries normally do not profit from waste imports. The benefits that you describe are primarily for the criminals who actually earn a lot of money from waste trading!!! --193.174.11.19 11:17, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Eva and Til
  • Symbol oppose vote Multinational companies bring more jobs to these countries 193.174.11.19 11:25, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Mohammad
    • Symbol support vote If jobs are created the workers often face a very high health danger because of insufficient security arrangements. Thus, these jobs cannot be considered as "sustainable" --193.174.11.19 11:27, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anna,Ole
    • Symbol oppose vote Jobs are created in areas where there are no/little alternatives. Without the jobs created by the import of waste, there would not be any wealth creation at all. 193.174.11.19 11:35, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Julia/Alina

NoEdit

Argument 1 Edit

Symbol oppose vote Developed countries are not exploiting developing countires as pollutions havens because developing countries have the souvereinty to decide weather or not they want to take on hazardous waste for money. --Kerry

  • Symbol support vote Developing countries often have no choice do decide whether they want to import toxic waste. They are really poor, are often ruled by corrupt political governments and therefore import each waste they can get. --193.174.11.19 11:04, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Till and Eva
  • Symbol oppose vote It is not the job of the company to improve the government. its the job of transparancy international. 193.174.11.19 11:28, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Mohammad, Wulong, Erwan
    • Symbol support vote Supply chains are usually long and transparency international can't track where the waste comes from and therefore multinational countries use this possibility for not being held responsible. --193.174.11.98 11:32, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Till and Ev
  • Symbol oppose vote Taking paterlism into accout, the general people in these poor countries could not make long term, sustainable decision because of for example education, therefore, the developed countries shoudl take responsiblity to help them make decision properly. 193.174.11.19 11:36, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Mohammad, Wulong, Erwan

Argument 2 Edit

Symbol oppose vote Developing countries have the right to make their living by accepting the waste, they can create jobs and wealth and gain resources they wouldn't have access to otherwise. There is no exploitation, everything is based on voluntary actions.193.174.11.19 10:54, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Julia

  • Symbol support vote Jobs are often not created because the hazardous waste is illegally resold in most cases instead of being recycled. --193.174.11.19 11:05, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anna,Ole
  • Symbol oppose vote It is not the responsability of the developed countries to control what the developing countries do to the waste they bought. If they resell it, it's their own fault for not creating jobs and using the money they got wisely. --Kerry und Katrin
    • Symbol support vote  It is the responsibility of developed countries because sooner or later they will face the consequences of a failed recycling process like we saw in the Inuit Milk example.193.174.11.19 11:17, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anna,Ole
      • Symbol oppose vote But the people who sell the waste illegally actually do have a job. 193.174.11.19 11:13, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Julia
      • Symbol support vote But how many people do actually have a job in comparison to the whole population of a country?? --193.174.11.98 11:35, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Till and Eva
      • Symbol support vote  Although these illegal jobs are created, the value of the job is very low because it aims at environmental damage.--193.174.11.19 11:46, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anna,Ole

Argument 3 Edit

Argument 4 Edit

Symbol oppose vote If a developing country feels it can handle the hazardous waste, it should be allowed to do this and not be subject to paternalism from developed countries. -- Kerry and Katrin

  • Symbol support vote Countries set their environmental standards below socially efficient levels in order to attract investment or to promote its exports. Developing countries depend on developed countries to strengthen their economy. Developed countries know about their paternalistic advantage and exploit developing countries. --193.174.11.19 11:07, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Theresa + Nele
    • Symbol oppose vote Developed countries depend on developing countries, otherwise what would they do with all their hazardous waste? 193.174.11.19 11:25, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Julia/Alina
    • Symbol support vote Yes that's the point! It is THEIR waste so why should they pass on the problem to countries with less possibilities to cope with the waste and take responsibility of the damage companies in developed countries did? --193.174.11.19 11:36, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Nele+Theresa

Argument 5 Edit

Symbol oppose vote Developed countries provide developing countries with the possibilities for economic growth by paying waste disposal contracts, creating jobs in the same context, and enabling developing countries to recycle waste and either reuse this for production or resell it for profits. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 10:57, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote Sound economic thinking - but what about the environmetal aspects? Do you honestly think that developing contries have the capabilities in handeling toxic waste in a apropriate way? --Anders Johnsen (talk) 11:11, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Kristian/Anders
    • Symbol oppose vote According to the Basel Convention it is prohibited to export waste to countries to countries where proper recycling facilities are not available. So in a sense it shouldn't happen when they do not have the capabilities. If it happens the country accepting the waste disposal contract is manipulating with the rules of the convention and acting against the well-being of the population. In this case, the talk can not be of exploitation from the side of well develop countries, but from governments from developing countries that are taking advantage of the lacking knowledge of their populations. By misleading developing countries into thinking that they have the right capacities and making the population pay the bill by effectively polluting the lands and destroying their livelyhood.--Mojojojo89 (talk) 11:18, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
    • *** Symbol support vote Symbol support vote Symbol support vote So now you come with the Basel Convention – Are you aware that the US have not sign it??? Additionally, you argue that the governments of developing countries are taking advantage of its people, but isn’t it the governments of the developed world taking advantage of the less developed ones? --Anders Johnsen (talk) 11:28, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Kristian/Anders

    • * Symbol oppose vote  The US is one nation and this nation can hardly be attributed 100% of the worlds waste. If the government of a developing country accepts a deal that is harmful for its people, it is its own responsibility. Their hand was not forced.--Mojojojo89 (talk) 11:36, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Argument 6 Edit

Symbol oppose vote Developing countries can benefit from reselling precious metals and at the same time they might experience spill over effects in terms of recycling technologies being exported to developing countries from developed countries. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 11:01, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote True that they can benefit, but before exporting toxic waste one have to ensure that the counties importing the stuff has appropriate facilities to handle and responsibly recycle it. This is unfortunately not the case in many countries. Hence, the developing countries are simply focusing on cost reduction and profit-maximisation. --Anders Johnsen (talk) 11:22, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Kristian/Anders</p>
  • Symbol support vote It's only a fraction of the metals, they can actually resell/or use. The problem consists of the metals and waste that are not being resold/used, and that they don't know how to handle. And a consequence of the missing knowledge about how to handle it, is that it effects future generation with pollution all over the world. Example is: Unuit-case  --Kristinajansen (talk) 11:25, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Jeanette+Kristina
  • Symbol oppose vote Developing countries should not decide to take on hazardous waste if they don't know how to handle it. --12:25, January 24, 2014 (UTC) Katrin+Kerry