4 ms·
You may have missed this point in TFA; “China is ahead on electrifying its fleet because it has the world’s worst pollution problem. With a growing urban popul
by zaroth 9y ago
You may have missed this point in TFA;
“China is ahead on electrifying its fleet because it has the world’s worst pollution problem. With a growing urban population and galloping energy demand, the nation’s legendary smogs were responsible for 1.6 million extra deaths in 2015, according to non-profit Berkeley Earth.”
It’s great to celebrate progress, but don’t fall for the spin.
A study published in Nature [1] found 3.3 million deaths per year worldwide attributed to air pollution. China owning nearly half that is mind blowing.
The figure for the U.S., by comparison, is 60-80,000. In terms of per capita mortality rate, China’s polution problem is 5x more deadly. [2]
Economics is the study of allocation of scarce resources. China investing more heavily in electrifying their buses is not surprising in the context of a deadly pollution epidemic. The same level of investment into electric buses in the US would be a tradgedy in the sense of actual lives lost due to gross misallocation of public funds.
[1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15371 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15371
[2] - (1.6e6 / 1.3e9) / (8e4 / 3.2e8)
- m_mueller 9y agoIMO conflating air polution and greenhouse gases does not make a lot of sense. CO2 has the highest impact greenhouse gas, yet it has no adverse health effects in the concentrations humans are exposed to it. In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is AFAIK still below EU average and 3x below the US who is by far the worst offender among highly populated developed nations. Air pollution is a problem, yes, but a different one than combating human induced climate change.
- zaroth 9y agoI’m not sure where climate change enters the picture in this story. I don’t think China is investing in electric buses to reduce CO2 to head off climate change, but rather to control actual smog/air pollution.
- danans 9y ago> The same level of investment into electric buses in the US would be a tradgedy in the sense of actual lives lost due to gross misallocation of public funds. I get it that you don't like public investment in electric buses, but there is no evidence to suggest that such investment would cause any "actual lives lost", vs the other much bigger public budget items in the US. If anything, more people in buses would likely reduce a significant cause of deaths in the US: car accidents.
- zaroth 9y agoI have no issue at all with the appropriate level of investment in electric buses. Investment in public transit in general is besides the point. It’s economic fact that paying more for an electric bus and building the infrastructure to support them is more justifiable and will provide better ROI in China where the pollution is 5x more deadly. If your metric is spending dollars efficiently to save lives, there’s better ROI in the US by spending the money elsewhere.
- danans 9y ago> If your metric is spending dollars efficiently to save lives, there’s better ROI in the US by spending the money elsewhere. It's massively oversimplifying the trade-off to reduce it to a single metric, and it proposes a false choice. Why not also consider reducing congestion, reducing local-air-pollution related respiratory conditions, etc? And compared to the known types of huge government expenditures that might be doing actual harm to some subset of citizens (i.e. lives lost in wars of questionable value) why point the finger at electric buses?
- pjc50 9y ago> actual lives lost due to gross misallocation of public funds. The US already makes gross under-allocation of public funds with the result of lives lost, but since that relates to healthcare and homelessness it seems hard to get anyone to care.
- _bxg1 9y agoI'm not saying they have fewer environmental problems, I'm saying that when they decide to solve one they're able to just go all-in and get it done.