Argument 4[]
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
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)
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
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
- 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)
- So actually Alina + Julia agree with us? --Kristian-h (talk) 11:32, January 24, 2014 (UTC)Anders/Kristian
**
Do you honestly believe that developing countries are able to dispose toxic waste as properly and cleanly as developed countries?**
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
