5 ms·
> The move is "backed by chemical, oil and other industry groups that bear the costs of implementing the higher standards," the Journal writes. I'm bothered by
by mattst88 6y ago
> The move is "backed by chemical, oil and other industry groups that bear the costs of implementing the higher standards," the Journal writes.
I'm bothered by this description. The polluters are not paying for their external costs (i.e., the pollution they're putting into the atmosphere). Those costs have serious effects beyond their bottom lines, like 12,000 additional deaths per year.
I think this is a more accurate desciption:
> The move is backed by chemical, oil and other industry groups that are benefiting financially by foisting the costs of their pollution on society.
- sagarm 6y agoOr in economic terms, these companies currently benefit from unpriced and unmitigated externalities and to nobody's surprise would like things to stay that way.
- rayiner 6y agoChemical, oil, etc., are competitive markets where cost increases rapidly get passed into consumers. So the most accurate description would be: > The move is backed by chemical, oil, and other industry groups that bear the immediate costs of implementing higher standards, and whose customers (which is almost everybody) enjoy lower prices by dealing with the pollution generated by these activities.
- ipqk 6y agoExcept that while everyone might enjoy the lower prices, the poor and minorities bear the brunt of pollution externalities.
- yostrovs 6y agoAre minorities more susceptible to environmental pollution?
- ip26 6y agoPoor folks can't afford fancy air quality monitors, filtering, well-built houses without leaks, or houses on the clean-air side of town. They are more likely to work outside. Poor communities are almost always on the east side of town because (in the Northern Hemisphere) prevailing west winds usually blow the town's pollution east. This is also how the "right" and "wrong" side of the tracks came about. It bears similarities to heat waves, which mainly kill the poor. You never see headlines about how the last heat wave killed twenty-three investment bankers in their penthouses.
- yostrovs 6y agoYou're talking about poor people, not minorities, though there's an overlap. There's also an overlap with white people. Actually, the focus should be on people that are disproportionately affected by pollution, regardless of their skin tone. There are towns around refineries and heavy industry that are predominantly white. Are you implying we should care less about them?
- tptacek 6y agoNo, but they tend disproportionately to live in areas near pollution sources.
- ashtonkem 6y agoYou say that as if it's a bad thing, but making pollution more expensive for the consumer is a good thing. Pricing pollution into the cost of the product will induce some consumers to spend their limited resources on less polluting options, which is exactly what we want them to do.
- fy20 6y agoFind a politician who wants to raises taxes for everybody in their current term. That's why so many countries are announcing they are banning ICE cars in a decade or more. By that time everybody would have forgotten which politician enacted it, if they are even still in a political career.
- xyzzyz 6y agoYou’re insufficiently cynical. By the time these ICE car bans go into effect, politicians whose terms it will fall on will grant “temporary extension” until after their term, rinse and repeat.
- ashtonkem 6y agoI suspect that many are hoping that ICE cars will be more expensive and less popular by the time their ban rolls around.
- 6y ago