Depends what sort of pollution though - obviously if you're talking GHG emissions or many other small-molecule airborne pollutants (though not CO) it doesn't really matter where it's being emitted. But other sorts of pollution are much more local, and depending on the surrounding ecosystem (esp. waterways) and level of human habitation, it very much may well make sense to ensure it only occurs in areas where it will have less harmful effect.

Agree with your comments but ghg are not pollutants. They are a necessary part of an ecosystem that is being tipped too far in one direction

Sounds a bit like the claim that micronutrients like zinc or cadmium can't qualify as toxins (despite having toxic qualities at high doses).

About the only tax increase in USA I would support is an incoming environmental parity tariff. Make iStuff in China India Indonesia, though the incoming environmental tariff won't make it cheaper to pollute over there.

I dont disagree. I hope that adequate environmental regulations persist and those improvements in efficiency are realized.