So lets say that there is a company that makes a product, but then they dump the waste on village people’s land. The village people get cancer, however since the village people are far away from the consumers (lets say the consumers are in california and the village people are in the middle of the united states), the consumers wont care about the village people since they are so far away. So therefore if government cant step in to tell the company to stop hurting the environmental waste, then how do we stop the village people from dieing?
I argued this point by saying, well there is probably going to be a point where dumping on the village people becomes too costly (too much waste) to be dumped (paying the trash company to dump ur stuff), and then the company will research technologies to minimize waste and therefore enchance their profit.
But then the counter argument was that, well dumping is generally much cheaper, and the amount of waste required to make dumping expensive is unreachable, so therefore if the government tells the company to stop dumping waste on the village people, the village people will not die off and the company can still make the profit (the government forces the company to research new technology)
So then what do I say?