2 ms·

>>> You can’t do anything without generating pollution. None of the things that enable this interaction on HN exist without pollution. Uh, you can absolutely b

>>> You can’t do anything without generating pollution. None of the things that enable this interaction on HN exist without pollution. Uh, you can absolutely be pollution neutral. You can be carbon neutral, and I don't buy for one microsecond that there are 0 technologies that could filter soot from smokestacks. In fact, we could recapture all of it. If you read about the history of pollution, you'll see that the "informed tradeoffs" is a complete fairy-tale. It's mostly ignorance and abuse of the poor by the wealthy (who put polluting factories in poor areas like West Virginia). Some reading: https://www.ehn.org/dupont-c8-parkersburg-2644262065.html https://www.ehn.org/dupont-c8-parkersburg-2644262065.html

rayiner 6y ago
> Uh, you can absolutely be pollution neutral. You can be carbon neutral, and I don't buy for one microsecond that there are 0 technologies that could filter soot from smokestacks. In fact, we could recapture all of it. You said “pollution” should be banned. That includes a whole lot more than soot. And no, you can’t recapture “all” of the soot from a smokestack. Filtering particulates out of flue-gas stacks is a whole field of engineering. And that’s just one source. PM2.5 is produced by a huge variety of human activity: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/sources-air-pollution-most-impact-health https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/sources-air-pollution-most-i.... The dominant source is actually residential wood burning. > If you read about the history of pollution, you'll see that the "informed tradeoffs" is a complete fairy-tale. It's mostly ignorance and abuse of the poor by the wealthy (who put polluting factories in poor areas like West Virginia). I focused on environmental policy in law school. It is absolutely about informed trade-offs, within an economic framework. Equity is one part of policy, but the field is not “mostly” about that. Of course that aspect of it gets a lot of press, because it makes for easy narratives for liberal arts major journalists who have trouble with science and economics.
- zug_zug 6y ago
  >> Of course that aspect of it gets a lot of press, because it makes for easy narratives for liberal arts major journalists who have trouble with science and economics. Wow, hah, that's mighty condescending and laughably misinformed. I think perhaps you're the one who should read a little more about the science. In short, the history of pollution is - people invent something with 0 thought given to side effects (e.g. smoking). Side effects turn out to be very bad. Company maliciously hides all evidence, and tries to manipulate data/researchers (usually fairly successfully). Only after decades and decades of fighting does the scientific consensus prove that yes, secondhand smoking, lead exhaust, air pollution, PFOAs, microplastics, hundreds of (now-revoked) pesticides, pthalates, etc was even worse than everybody thought, and the policies are adjusted after massive suffering. That's why your fairy-tale about legal tradeoffs crumbles under the gentlest scrutiny. Because these policies around air-pollution predate any meaningful research on the health effects of this pollution. Just off the top of my head, here's an article from last year of PM2.5 as a potential cause of depression [1]. Nobody knows yet how many more indirect and damaging effects from various types of pollution are yet to be discovered (from PM2.5 or otherwise). 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6447209/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6447209/

rayiner 6y ago

> Uh, you can absolutely be pollution neutral. You can be carbon neutral, and I don't buy for one microsecond that there are 0 technologies that could filter soot from smokestacks. In fact, we could recapture all of it. You said “pollution” should be banned. That includes a whole lot more than soot. And no, you can’t recapture “all” of the soot from a smokestack. Filtering particulates out of flue-gas stacks is a whole field of engineering. And that’s just one source. PM2.5 is produced by a huge variety of human activity: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/sources-air-pollution-most-impact-health https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/sources-air-pollution-most-i.... The dominant source is actually residential wood burning. > If you read about the history of pollution, you'll see that the "informed tradeoffs" is a complete fairy-tale. It's mostly ignorance and abuse of the poor by the wealthy (who put polluting factories in poor areas like West Virginia). I focused on environmental policy in law school. It is absolutely about informed trade-offs, within an economic framework. Equity is one part of policy, but the field is not “mostly” about that. Of course that aspect of it gets a lot of press, because it makes for easy narratives for liberal arts major journalists who have trouble with science and economics.

zug_zug 6y ago
>> Of course that aspect of it gets a lot of press, because it makes for easy narratives for liberal arts major journalists who have trouble with science and economics. Wow, hah, that's mighty condescending and laughably misinformed. I think perhaps you're the one who should read a little more about the science. In short, the history of pollution is - people invent something with 0 thought given to side effects (e.g. smoking). Side effects turn out to be very bad. Company maliciously hides all evidence, and tries to manipulate data/researchers (usually fairly successfully). Only after decades and decades of fighting does the scientific consensus prove that yes, secondhand smoking, lead exhaust, air pollution, PFOAs, microplastics, hundreds of (now-revoked) pesticides, pthalates, etc was even worse than everybody thought, and the policies are adjusted after massive suffering. That's why your fairy-tale about legal tradeoffs crumbles under the gentlest scrutiny. Because these policies around air-pollution predate any meaningful research on the health effects of this pollution. Just off the top of my head, here's an article from last year of PM2.5 as a potential cause of depression [1]. Nobody knows yet how many more indirect and damaging effects from various types of pollution are yet to be discovered (from PM2.5 or otherwise). 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6447209/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6447209/