Is there any room for a cost/benefit analysis in your position? Or is it dogma?

Yes, the chemicals are bad for dogs, too.

Seriously, though - I guess our definitions of "poorer" differ. You seem to be talking in terms of money or material wealth, while I'm thinking in terms of our overall quality of life. I'd rather have a little less money and be healthier (though folks may not think so by looking at my fat self).

Based on the affects of working with (or living near) a lot of these toxic chemicals, though, I'd have to say that we'd be comparing having a little less money and being healthier to having a little more money and being in extremely poor health. And having frogs w/ extra legs and eyes. Not to mention the children - think of the children!

Actually, my preference would be for China to have the same enviromental regulations as we have here in the U.S. I'd just as soon their children (think of the children!) not be exposed to the toxicity either.

I think the real issue w/ battery manufacturing is evironmental more than high taxes. Making batteries requires the use of a lot of toxic chemicals and generates toxic waste. Since China and other Asian countries have less stringent (or no) regulations on those chemicals, it's much cheaper to make batteries there than it is to deal with the proper handling, storage, and disposal of the toxic stuff in the U.S.

Personally, I'd prefer that the policies and regulations governing use and disposal of that nasty stuff not be "fixed."