Business
done is to disobey the laws. Business has broken other obligations beside the obligation to obey the law and has harmed the environment as a result. Moral negligence must be seen above people's rights in the case of pollution. Unfortunately companies have quite literally taken the option of the moral minimum. This is that obligations towards the environment fall into the moral minimum category. The main polluters have viewed the situation as to what extent do they feel they should play the good samaritan. This is obviously a selfish view but in their eyes there are three moral obligations. Firstly avoiding harm, then preventing harm and finally doing good. Without pollution laws this policy will continue to be followed. With the introduction of laws people will begin to change their views and hopefully actions.
To conclude, even if consumers could be persuaded to take environmental issues more seriously, the externalities, opportunities to free ride, and public goods of characteristics of the environment make it difficult for even enlightened consumers to express their true preference for the environment in the market. I do not feel that pollution laws are unjust, although I'm sure there would be many people who do not feel the same way. In this case there must be some form of limit on peoples freedom. Actions carried out by certain individuals would not be taken into consideration unless they effect the environment in which we live. Perhaps business has a special duty to educate the public and to promote environmentally responsible behaviour.