That's a strawman. The argument is not about the fact that there are chemical plants in cancer alley at all, it's about practices in chemical plants. Dumping waste is not a necessary result of producing chemicals.

Green chemistry[1] designs systems and reactions that don't produce waste. This can be as simple as reusing water or as complex as alternative reactions (as is the case for making nylon without nitric acid). In some cases green chemistry can even save money. You can also collect and use waste for other purposes or put it into long term storage eg using it as a filler in concrete. There is practically no such thing as useless waste, only coordination problems.

The only "problem" here is stopping people/companies from dumping into the ground and water.

[1]: https://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry

If we're purely focused on economics, without any moral judegements or other human values inserted, then the answer is the typical answer for negative externalities. The companies that are exerting economic losses on others via pollution and loss of use of land and loss of health, etc. must pay for those losses in order for a free market to properly price the economic benefit of producing those chemicals. When local politicians say that they're not going to do that in order to attract these businesses, they are explicitly optimizing for worse economic outcomes.

Of course, taking a purely economic view is fairly cold and uncaring. The other issues should also be at play. But I don't think they offer anything more generous to these companies

So given that we have to make chemicals somewhere, how do we minimize the externalities? Locate the plant somewhere where nobody lives, and downwind from the plant are hundreds of miles of ocean where nobody lives, etc. This is probably where they would be naturally located if plant owners had to pay for externalities.

If plant owners had to pay for externalities they would make sure the plant doesn't release pollution.

Does money really solve all problems though? This is what is a bit naive about economics. Would people living downwind from the plant be ok with getting XX million dollars if they had to die early from cancer and miss out on 40 years of their lives? Why not move the plant somewhere where it's not getting anybody sick instead of trying to solve all problems with giving victims money. Money is not the universal and only solution to all problems.

Money's not a universal solution. But in this particular case it would help. If re plant owners had to pay for the damage they inflicted on those around them, then given a choice between a site where they had to pay because people were there and a site where they did not have to pay because people were not there, what would they choose?

Also, enforcing economic solutions does not necessarily prevent adding other non economic solutions. For an economic activity, such as production of these chemicals, economic solutions can go a really really long way to bettering behavior.

i think the point is that the plant would become prohibitively expensive so the economical and profitable thing would be to produce in a cleaner way.

Unfortunately the other option is to move the plant to the third world and kill poor people who can't afford to fight back.

How about making chemicals in a way that doesn't release pollution?

Alternatively, put them next to the houses of the owners and management and the schools of their children.

Show me how to make neoprene at competitive prices with no pollution and I'll quit my job and fund raise for you tomorrow.

The way they're making it now doesn't account for all the costs, so your question is moot. The current manufacturing process ignores the costs that are externalized to the Government and the individuals exposed to the chemicals.

Of course it's competitive.

Thank you for reminding us about externalities. Currently they aren't priced in the market. So if you want to do something about it you either have to price them in with the govt (not likely to happen) or you have to invent something better.

I'm saying, pull requests are welcome.

How much more would cleanly produced neoprene cost?

Is neoprene really the only way to make wet suits? I doubt it.

Regulate. A dirty word on HN, surely. Regulate the production of and, possibly, the import of neoprene, etc. Force industries to innovate - I know that's not a dirty word here - in order to sell these goods to Americans. Maybe then America becomes the sole producer of environmentally-friendly wet-suits to the whole of the word.

I think this is the only solution since your proposed solution of just "put the plants somewhere else" is, as you've pointed out, untenable.

Patagonia sell neoprene-free wetsuits.

http://www.patagonia.com/yulex-natural-rubber-wetsuits.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenium_argentatum

> The only place I can think of like that is southern Argentina

I doubt the Argentinians will go along with that.

I believe you are underestimating the capability of subversive diplomacy and corruptibility of bureaucracy :-)

Yes, it's called Louisiana.