Forum debate: Who benefits from pollution?

Forum debate: Who benefits from pollution?

In Madrid, metro construction and tunnels fill streets with concrete mixers and trenches. Suspended dust accumulates as cars keep moving. The uncomfortable question hovering over the asphalt is: who benefits from this model? A detailed analysis of the hidden costs of pollution reveals that the main victims are citizens themselves, while a few reap billions in benefits.

Why defend what harms us?

The paradox is clear. Renewable energy produces electricity at declining costs, while imported fossil fuels raise bills and fund hostile regimes. Yet, a segment of the population clings to old models as if their lives depended on it. Electrified public transport, compact urban planning, and recycling are seen as ideological impositions rather than tangible improvements. Some argue that anything smelling of change is communism, environmentalism, or globalism, and thus must be rejected without further analysis.

This visceral rejection has a measurable economic cost: respiratory diseases, contaminated soils, untreated wastewater. Expert data suggests air pollution is behind a growing number of cancers and chronic illnesses. Meanwhile, the main beneficiaries of the status quo—oil companies, construction firms, investment funds—continue to swell their accounts.

The business of burning imported oil

Oil from producing countries costs an arm and a leg and finances governments that certainly don’t like us. Each imported barrel is a flow of money leaving the national economy and ending up in the hands of foreign oligarchies. In contrast, solar and wind energy already compete on price. The full calculation, broken down item by item, reveals a surprising difference for those who bother to look.

But inertia is powerful. It is argued that if China or the US don’t reduce emissions, Europe shouldn’t do it alone. It’s the classic “if the neighbor throws trash in the river, I will too” reasoning. The result is a planet turned into a pigsty, where everyone loses. Scientific evidence, however, knows no borders: CO2 doesn’t respect customs.

What about nuclear energy?

The nuclear debate deserves a separate chapter. Radioactive waste is potentially lethal for centuries, and there is evidence of leaking barrels on the sea floor. France has acknowledged searching for barrels it dumped decades ago. Some link these practices to cancer outbreaks, though causal relationships are unproven. Nuclear energy, presented as clean, carries an environmental liability future generations will inherit.

Ideology as an excuse

Conservatism, in its most closed version, tends to reject any proposal sounding like pogre. Anything representing an alternative is labeled communism, environmentalism, animalism, or Satanism. This stance prevents any rational debate on costs and benefits. Meanwhile, the real culprits—large corporations—continue to pollute with impunity and fund those who defend them.

The initial question remains unanswered: how does pollution benefit ordinary citizens? The only possible conclusion is that it benefits a few at the expense of everyone’s health and wallets. The startling fact is that, despite evidence, a segment of the population continues to vote for those defending this model. See it to believe it.