Lawrence semimar, the world bank’s chief economist, wrote a memo to his colleagues two years ago to defend the practice. His opinion was published by the economist in February 1992. Mr Mori proposes three reasons to support the world bank’s efforts to encourage highly polluting industries to migrate to less developed countries.

He believes that the pollution industry and waste from advanced countries should be transferred to backward countries because it is economically efficient. First, the cost of pollution should be calculated based on the increased morbidity and mortality resulting from the resulting loss of income. Since the wages of poor countries are much lower, it is cost-effective to export pollution to poor countries, even if they cause disease and death.

Second, the level of pollution in the third world is low, but the level of economic development is low. Such a low pollution is actually inefficient. To improve efficiency and economy, pollution is unavoidable. Unfortunately, many advanced countries’ polluting sectors (such as transportation, electricity production, etc.) cannot be transferred to other countries. But other transferable sectors, the world bank should encourage them to move.

Third, pollution can increase the chance of people developing certain diseases. Some industrial waste, for example, increases cancer rates by one in a million. If the waste is produced in advanced countries, as the average life expectancy in these countries is high, there will be many people who are ill in old age (more than 40 years old). But, in some poor countries, population under the age of five mortality to two hundred over one thousand, can live in the small population, so, even if the pollution industry transfer the kingdom, and its harm is less than in advanced kingdoms.

The world bank later told the economist that the memos’ memo was designed to “induce debate” among colleagues. He also stressed that he was not advocating “dumping toxic waste in poor areas”. But few of those familiar with orthodox economics suspect the memo’s argument is serious.

In fact, the economist has also pointed out that the language of sammaz is a bit offensive, “but its economics cannot be questioned.”As the chief economist of the world bank, his remarks were by no means a book theory, but a practical impact on the world bank’s policies. Mr Semmaz’s argument is that it is a “economic benefit” to export pollution to poor countries without restraint. The poor are not as valuable as the rich, according to sammas. If so, the undeliverable domestic waste should also be left in the poor rather than the rich.

The economist has tried to downplay the claims made by sammas of the poor. They say this class value proposition does not play a role in government policy. The truth, however, is that the government tends to make policy based on this class view, as is the case abroad. In fact, in the other part of the article in the economist also acknowledged that the government sometimes in domestic medical, health, education, labor and housing policies to take this class discrimination of values.

To illustrate this, we only need to look at the United States. The American administration and budget office of the leegen era calculated how much a person’s life would be worth in terms of how much extra allowance workers would receive based on higher risk jobs. The conclusion is that a worker in the United States lives between $500,000 and $2 million. Administrative and budget according to the statistics, argues that what are the ways to reduce the pollution of cost-effective, which don’t, and that everything is in order to cooperate with column root President no.12291 executive order no. 1, namely all measures must conform to “the principle of social benefit maximization”.

Some economists agree. They believe that the value of human life should be determined by how much money he makes. So, men’s lives are worth more than women, and white lives are worth more than black people. Apply this principle to environmental protection, that is to say, if the suffering of pollution is poor, its harm is considered relatively small. Toxic waste should therefore be disposed of in poor areas. In fact, a survey in 1983 showed that in the southern states, four of the three hazardous waste dumps were located in the ghetto, although the black population accounted for only 20 percent of the population in these areas.