5 ms·

> None of the 35 photos are pretty (other than the film-photo haze), but it's worth remembering what US cities used to be like before we cared what we put into

by dvt 7y ago

> None of the 35 photos are pretty (other than the film-photo haze), but it's worth remembering what US cities used to be like before we cared what we put into the air, soil, and water. IMO, this is disingenuous. I think that there's a very good argument made against federal agencies that are run by bureaucrats with zero skin in the game. These kinds of sytems are also ripe for corruption. The counter-claim that there's no way local governments could come together and offer a comparable solution is dubious. Fun fact: the EPA spends ~16 million tax dollars a day. As a side note, it's also interesting how HN has sort of politically migrated from moderate-center-libertarianism (when I first started reading it) to left-leaning-federalism.

milquetoastaf 7y ago
I'm pretty sure they have skin in the game as they live in this country
YokoZar 7y ago
> The argument that there's no way local governments could come together and offer a comparable solution is dubious. Local governments can't even agree on regional transportation or housing policies. Every one wants to cheat or have someone else pay for it.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The counter-claim that there's no way local governments could come together and offer a comparable solution is dubious. If they could, why didn't they? The federal government wasn't exactly quick to react to the problem, though when it did it was reasonably effective.
- dvt 7y ago
  They did. See, for example, the California Air Pollution Control District Act of 1947. I'm sure other states had similar laws passed. To argue that the EPA "fixed pollution" is very reductive, but I guess people believe whatever they want to believe.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    These photos were taken almost thirty years afterwards. So either their attempts to fix the rampant pollution was an abject failure or it was lipservice. Local governments are not immune to corruption either, especially when business incentives tend to have even stronger local ties. Plus, what if a city decides to be negligent and not fix the problem in the first place? What if that city's pollution starts crossing state lines? etc This isn't something that can just be outsourced to local governments especially when there's plenty of evidence that they failed to control the problem.
mayniac 7y ago
Why use the daily cost of the EPA, unless you're trying (very obviously) to scaremonger? To put that figure in perspective, it's $5.8B a year. This is much lower than most departments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud.... The DoD spends the EPA's yearly budget in about three and a half days.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  The US spends $1.8B a day on defense? Obviously I knew the budget was larger than any other nation, but this does put it into perpective.
  - cosmodisk 7y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_Unite...
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    It seems less implausible when you consider that essentially none of it is actually being spent on defense, as such.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- esotericn 7y ago
  5 US cents per day per citizen. A monthly subscription of $1.50. Well, you know, that Spotify subscription doesn't look quite so cheap any more.
nharada 7y ago
Even if there's a good argument to be made, I think the argument of having a larger body do the regulation still wins out. Local governments simply do not have the incentives to make many of the changes required. For example, it's very worth it for Indiana to dump steel mill runoff straight into the great lakes. Their slice of the lake is small and it saves lots of money. But the issue is that Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan all have a vested interest, and have to pay those externalities. When push comes to shove, Indiana isn't going to pay a bunch more money just because they were asked nicely by nearby governments. Really, I think the argument is strongly in favor of the opposite direction. As the scale of problems increase, the oversight of the agency that deals with them needs to as well. Hence, why it's so hard to see any meaningful progress in worldwide cooperation on reducing emissions -- when it comes down to it, some countries just don't want to pay more money to pollute less. And who's gonna stop them?
vharuck 7y ago
>The counter-claim that there's no way local governments could come together and offer a comparable solution is dubious. It's not so much that localities can't as it is they didn't. Besides, pollution often affects large areas and crosses state boundaries. That sounds like the federal government's concern.
Aloha 7y ago
I'm a pretty hard libertarian in most respects, a mechanism like the EPA is needed, even if you replace it with pollution taxes - I grew up in an area with heavy air pollution that has been cleaned up thru regulation, Americans deserve clean air, water and earth - no one has a right to force their pollution on someone else, and you either get the companies to clean up their own act voluntarily or force them thru law. period. You're right in that there is a real issue with everyday Americans having too little recourse against the administrative state, unwinding all regulation isnt the way however to fix that.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zucker42 7y ago
I don't understand how that statement is disingenuous. It's completely true that smog, air quality, etc. were bigger problems before the establishment of the EPA and the passage of the Clean Air Act. There's a reason the EPA was established, and I think it is naive to claim that local stopgap legislation could have addressed the national/international problem, especially since they had failed to do so before the establishment of the EPA. Pollution specifically is an economic issue that involves heavy externalities, so I believe it requires at least some centralized regulation to address. Of course, there's inefficiencies in government bureaucracy, and we should seek to eliminate inefficiencies when we find them. But I don't know if I'm willing to risk the climate where I live to local governments halfway across the country (or world).
wonderwonder 7y ago
I think the argument is that local politicians have too much skin in the game, namely their re-election. Their local laws affect surrounding communities as well. For example, to get re-elected Governor Bob declares all pollution levels dismissed. Manufacturing in the state booms, thousands of jobs are created and Bob handily wins re-election. Coal ash and chemical run-off is dumped into all the rivers and lakes. Farmers pour on the phosphorus and algal blooms choke the bay killing the fishing for 3 neighboring states. Cancer rates soar not only in Bob's state but also adjoining ones. The coal industry starts contributing to several PACs supporting Bob. But jobs, jobs, jobs. Bob is pretty sure he is going to run for senator after he term limits out of Governor.

by dvt 7y ago

milquetoastaf 7y ago

I'm pretty sure they have skin in the game as they live in this country

YokoZar 7y ago

> The argument that there's no way local governments could come together and offer a comparable solution is dubious. Local governments can't even agree on regional transportation or housing policies. Every one wants to cheat or have someone else pay for it.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The counter-claim that there's no way local governments could come together and offer a comparable solution is dubious. If they could, why didn't they? The federal government wasn't exactly quick to react to the problem, though when it did it was reasonably effective.

dvt 7y ago
They did. See, for example, the California Air Pollution Control District Act of 1947. I'm sure other states had similar laws passed. To argue that the EPA "fixed pollution" is very reductive, but I guess people believe whatever they want to believe.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  These photos were taken almost thirty years afterwards. So either their attempts to fix the rampant pollution was an abject failure or it was lipservice. Local governments are not immune to corruption either, especially when business incentives tend to have even stronger local ties. Plus, what if a city decides to be negligent and not fix the problem in the first place? What if that city's pollution starts crossing state lines? etc This isn't something that can just be outsourced to local governments especially when there's plenty of evidence that they failed to control the problem.

mayniac 7y ago

Why use the daily cost of the EPA, unless you're trying (very obviously) to scaremonger? To put that figure in perspective, it's $5.8B a year. This is much lower than most departments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud.... The DoD spends the EPA's yearly budget in about three and a half days.

Aeolun 7y ago
The US spends $1.8B a day on defense? Obviously I knew the budget was larger than any other nation, but this does put it into perpective.
- cosmodisk 7y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_Unite...
- ncmncm 7y ago
  It seems less implausible when you consider that essentially none of it is actually being spent on defense, as such.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
esotericn 7y ago
5 US cents per day per citizen. A monthly subscription of $1.50. Well, you know, that Spotify subscription doesn't look quite so cheap any more.

nharada 7y ago

Even if there's a good argument to be made, I think the argument of having a larger body do the regulation still wins out. Local governments simply do not have the incentives to make many of the changes required. For example, it's very worth it for Indiana to dump steel mill runoff straight into the great lakes. Their slice of the lake is small and it saves lots of money. But the issue is that Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan all have a vested interest, and have to pay those externalities. When push comes to shove, Indiana isn't going to pay a bunch more money just because they were asked nicely by nearby governments. Really, I think the argument is strongly in favor of the opposite direction. As the scale of problems increase, the oversight of the agency that deals with them needs to as well. Hence, why it's so hard to see any meaningful progress in worldwide cooperation on reducing emissions -- when it comes down to it, some countries just don't want to pay more money to pollute less. And who's gonna stop them?

vharuck 7y ago

>The counter-claim that there's no way local governments could come together and offer a comparable solution is dubious. It's not so much that localities can't as it is they didn't. Besides, pollution often affects large areas and crosses state boundaries. That sounds like the federal government's concern.

Aloha 7y ago

I'm a pretty hard libertarian in most respects, a mechanism like the EPA is needed, even if you replace it with pollution taxes - I grew up in an area with heavy air pollution that has been cleaned up thru regulation, Americans deserve clean air, water and earth - no one has a right to force their pollution on someone else, and you either get the companies to clean up their own act voluntarily or force them thru law. period. You're right in that there is a real issue with everyday Americans having too little recourse against the administrative state, unwinding all regulation isnt the way however to fix that.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zucker42 7y ago

I don't understand how that statement is disingenuous. It's completely true that smog, air quality, etc. were bigger problems before the establishment of the EPA and the passage of the Clean Air Act. There's a reason the EPA was established, and I think it is naive to claim that local stopgap legislation could have addressed the national/international problem, especially since they had failed to do so before the establishment of the EPA. Pollution specifically is an economic issue that involves heavy externalities, so I believe it requires at least some centralized regulation to address. Of course, there's inefficiencies in government bureaucracy, and we should seek to eliminate inefficiencies when we find them. But I don't know if I'm willing to risk the climate where I live to local governments halfway across the country (or world).

wonderwonder 7y ago

I think the argument is that local politicians have too much skin in the game, namely their re-election. Their local laws affect surrounding communities as well. For example, to get re-elected Governor Bob declares all pollution levels dismissed. Manufacturing in the state booms, thousands of jobs are created and Bob handily wins re-election. Coal ash and chemical run-off is dumped into all the rivers and lakes. Farmers pour on the phosphorus and algal blooms choke the bay killing the fishing for 3 neighboring states. Cancer rates soar not only in Bob's state but also adjoining ones. The coal industry starts contributing to several PACs supporting Bob. But jobs, jobs, jobs. Bob is pretty sure he is going to run for senator after he term limits out of Governor.