I think I agree with this, but it depends what you mean by balance. "Some government control" is what creates a condition where corporations will relocate to states or nations with lax environmental regulations. In my mind, the problem in the case of the Musky's paper mills is not excessive regulation. Lax regulation would have kept jobs, and the river would still be running red and green. The problem is the condition that forces this shitty tradeoff upon us. And that condition is not excessive regulation - it's uneven regulation.
If anything, the story you're telling, which i appreciate and didn't know about, seems to show the need for strict, consistent environmental regulation at both federal and international levels. Forcing China to maintain the same environmental standards would keep jobs in the US while allowing our rivers to run clean.
But it's hard to see how and when that will ever happen when the crucial player in international accords (the US) acts to protect its economy first, torpedoing international agreements. Is the US right to worry about free-riders? Maybe, maybe not. We built our own industrial economy under a condition of no regulation whatsoever. So disputing the right of developing countries to enjoy looser standards seems hypocritical. But is China really, at this point, a "developing country"?
Anyway, the point is, the solution to such cases is not in my mind a fine balance between the strategic needs of a given paper company and the environment. It's strict, evenly applied environmental regulation across the board. Corporations will operate within whatever regulatory framework they're given, and will continue to a) make money and b) provide goods and services. They only oppose regulation when it creates winners or losers, either because the regulations are uneven (as in this case) or because they themselves are
less able than competitors to meet the regulations. The solution is simple. It's the pragmatic politics of achieving it that are complicated.
Again, I don't think I necessarily just disagreed with what you were saying. Of course we have to balance the needs of our economy with the needs of the environment. But in an ideal world that balance would be struck internationally and strongly enforced, leaving corporations an even playing field on which to compete, which is something both liberals and conservatives can agree would be a good thing.
