Climate Corner: Do we live in a pollution haven?

Jul 5, 2025

Vic Elam

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

Over the past several decades, the United States has experienced a steady loss of manufacturing and heavy industry to countries with more lenient environmental regulations. While globalization and economic factors like labor costs and trade agreements have certainly played a role, one of the more troubling aspects of this shift is the environmental dynamic: U.S. companies often relocate operations to countries where pollution laws are weaker or poorly enforced, allowing them to reduce costs at the expense of global environmental health. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as “pollution offshoring” or the “race to the bottom,” carries serious consequences for the environment, U.S. workers, and long-term global sustainability.

Environmental regulations and competitive disadvantage

The U.S. has some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, particularly when it comes to air and water pollution, hazardous waste management, and emissions control. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency enforce rules designed to protect ecosystems, public health, and climate stability. While these regulations are necessary and beneficial, they also impose compliance costs on industries, particularly in sectors like steel, chemicals, textiles, and electronics manufacturing.

To avoid these costs, many companies have moved production overseas, where environmental oversight is weaker or less enforced. In countries such as China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and parts of Latin America and Africa, factories often operate under laxer pollution rules, allowing companies to produce goods more cheaply while externalizing the environmental costs. This puts American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage, discouraging domestic production and contributing to the offshoring of jobs.

The rise of pollution havens

This trend has given rise to what economists and environmentalists call “pollution havens” — countries that attract industry by offering minimal environmental oversight. These nations often rely heavily on foreign investment for economic development and are more willing to tolerate high levels of pollution in exchange for jobs and growth.

In China, for example, the explosive growth of the industrial sector over the last few decades came with massive environmental costs, including severe air and water pollution. While the Chinese government has recently made efforts to tighten regulations, enforcement remains inconsistent, particularly in rural or less-developed regions. Similar situations exist in parts of Southeast Asia, where rivers have become toxic from dye runoff from garment factories and air quality suffers due to poorly regulated industrial zones.

The environmental degradation in these regions is not confined within their borders. Air pollution can cross continents, contaminated rivers flow into international waters, and the carbon emissions from overseas factories contribute to global climate change, affecting every country, including the United States.

It often seems that legislators representing the MOV have designs on making our area a pollution haven by relaxing air and water pollution regulations or failing to enforce the standards in place. The argument is always job creation – must we sacrifice the environment in which we live to have jobs? There are better ways to create better jobs if we embrace it and if we can divorce ourselves from the influence of corporations that control our policy makers.

Economic and social consequences at home

The outsourcing of environmentally intensive industries has hollowed out many American communities, particularly in the Midwest and Rust Belt. Once-thriving industrial towns have suffered job losses, declining tax bases, and economic stagnation. Workers in traditional manufacturing sectors have found it increasingly difficult to compete with low-wage, low-regulation countries. The result has been rising economic inequality, loss of skilled labor, and a sense of disconnection from global trade policies that appear to prioritize corporate profits over environmental and social justice.

Moreover, the offshoring of pollution does not solve environmental problems — it merely shifts them elsewhere. The global nature of climate change and pollution means that Americans still feel the effects, whether through global warming, supply chain disruptions, or the import of goods produced with toxic chemicals that remain in consumer products.

Toward a more sustainable and fair trade model

To address this problem, the U.S. and its trade partners must rethink the balance between economic growth and environmental responsibility. One solution is the incorporation of environmental standards into international trade agreements. If trade deals include binding environmental commitments, they can level the playing field and prevent companies from chasing the lowest regulatory standards.

As a person that works in the realm of environmental compliance, I must say that it does need to be less cumbersome. These protections are vital to protecting this countries’ natural resources, but the implementation is unnecessarily onerous. Attorneys get paid well for poking holes in Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, Endangered Species Act consultations, etc. and this puts a strain on the people that must produce these documents which creates delays.

Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are another promising strategy. These are tariffs applied to imports based on their carbon intensity, ensuring that foreign producers are held to similar environmental standards as domestic ones. The European Union has already begun implementing such measures, and the U.S. is considering similar policies.

Domestically, the U.S. can invest in clean technologies and green manufacturing to revitalize its industrial base without sacrificing environmental goals. Incentivizing sustainable practices through tax credits, subsidies, and research funding can help American businesses remain competitive while reducing pollution. At the same time, stronger international cooperation is needed to support developing countries in implementing and enforcing environmental standards without compromising their economic growth.

Conclusion

The loss of U.S. industry to countries with lax environmental regulations is a complex issue that intertwines economics, policy, and environmental justice. While globalization has brought benefits, it has also enabled companies to sidestep environmental responsibilities, creating pollution havens and undermining domestic industry. A fair and sustainable future will require coordinated global action to ensure that economic progress does not come at the cost of environmental degradation. Protecting the planet and protecting American workers must go hand in hand.

***

Vic Elam is an avid outdoorsman and contributor to organizations that share his concern for our environment, including Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.