4 ms·

The pro-pollution argument is this - pollution is an unwanted environmental result of an otherwise desirable activity. Reducing pollution may mean curtailing th

by steve_g 17y ago

The pro-pollution argument is this - pollution is an unwanted environmental result of an otherwise desirable activity. Reducing pollution may mean curtailing the desirable activity (undesirable) or changing how the activity is performed to reduce the unwanted consequence. The second approach usually makes the activity more expensive and thus less desirable. No one would argue that reducing pollution at a lower cost is a problem; that would benefit everyone. The problem is that pollution reduction is almost always a trade-off To understand the trade-offs you must understand the consequences and costs. The element that makes the whole situation intractable is that different people value the costs and benefits differently. Sorry, this is a tough one.

MaysonL 17y ago
The thing is, there is a whole lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of energy efficiency, which lowers pollution, with a cost which is paid back in a few years [thus soon becoming lower cost than the more polluting status quo].
- cgranade 17y ago
  One of the easiest and yet largest changes would probably be to shift cars and other vehicles from a generate on-board model to a model where energy is stored in the vehicle but is generated in a more centralized manner. Centralizing energy production enables better scaling (small ICEs are on average much less efficient than large ones), reduces the cost of deploying new technologies as they become available, enables depending on local opportunities for renewable energy, etc. There are many good proposals for how to store energy in-vehicle, such as capacitors, batteries, flywheels, fuel cells and even pneumatic storage. There's many good business opportunities to be had exploring these options and bringing them to market. See, for example, Tesla Motors and the Chevy Volt. There's a lot of startups doing good work in this field, including one founded by a HN regular DaniFong: http://lightsailenergy.com/ http://lightsailenergy.com/ As time goes on, I think we'll see an explosion in this area, but only if we as a society place the proper emphasis on tacking the problem.
- steve_g 17y ago
  But the folks who would bear the costs of improving efficiency don't appear to value the resulting reduction in pollution more than the cost. If they did, they would pay for the efficiency.

by steve_g 17y ago

MaysonL 17y ago

The thing is, there is a whole lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of energy efficiency, which lowers pollution, with a cost which is paid back in a few years [thus soon becoming lower cost than the more polluting status quo].

cgranade 17y ago
One of the easiest and yet largest changes would probably be to shift cars and other vehicles from a generate on-board model to a model where energy is stored in the vehicle but is generated in a more centralized manner. Centralizing energy production enables better scaling (small ICEs are on average much less efficient than large ones), reduces the cost of deploying new technologies as they become available, enables depending on local opportunities for renewable energy, etc. There are many good proposals for how to store energy in-vehicle, such as capacitors, batteries, flywheels, fuel cells and even pneumatic storage. There's many good business opportunities to be had exploring these options and bringing them to market. See, for example, Tesla Motors and the Chevy Volt. There's a lot of startups doing good work in this field, including one founded by a HN regular DaniFong: http://lightsailenergy.com/ http://lightsailenergy.com/ As time goes on, I think we'll see an explosion in this area, but only if we as a society place the proper emphasis on tacking the problem.
steve_g 17y ago
But the folks who would bear the costs of improving efficiency don't appear to value the resulting reduction in pollution more than the cost. If they did, they would pay for the efficiency.