> Who is right and who is wrong?

In Alabama it would the industrial sector that is in the wrong.

Nobody wants to pay for more expensive land, but we should force them to via regulation if they are going to spread cancer in the air.

Looking at the outcome of economic effects with "right and wrong" isn't really a helpful measurement. We should force them, not because they are "wrong" but because the economic incentives deliver an outcome that is undesirable.

Agreed, but I don't see how "economic incentives" and "undesirable outcomes" isn't just a different way of saying right and wrong.

“Right” and “wrong” implies a sense of free will. When the expensive negative externalities of a business are legalized, a market is guaranteed to force any would-be altruistic actors out of existence. Those who get a job in one of these industries have no functional or legal ability to make choices which would bankrupt their own organizations. The only way to solve the issue is with a regulatory level playing field.

Economic incentives are a scientific force. You can’t solve problems by suggesting that people ignore them, you have to work within the bounds of the natural effects that inherently exist. Groups of people do not make moral decisions like an individual person does.

We won’t solve this issue with mere criticism while we continue to financially reward these outcomes. Make negative externalities illegal.

More like nobody wants the industrial buildings near them but poor and marginalized communities don't have the political power to resist.

That’s still not the fault of industrial businesses. No businessperson could change this dynamic even if they wanted to. It’s the fault of our political process to give equitable representation to people of all economic backgrounds.