4 ms·

People don't really care about 100yo pollution that makes them and their neighbors marginally more cancerous when $3+ gas actually hurts them today and the wast

People don't really care about 100yo pollution that makes them and their neighbors marginally more cancerous when $3+ gas actually hurts them today and the wastewater plant is a museum of obsolete equipment. There's a fine (yet blurry) line between suffering an externalized problem and having other bigger problems that are more deserving of resources. They're poor. Not stupid. They have different situational constraints and therefore chart a different course.

mikeyouse 5y ago
Which is a perfect role for a strong regulator -- towns shouldn't have to weigh the tradeoffs of being poisoned. FWIW, Rockford isn't a poor town in any case, median income is like $70k/year which is very comfortable in the Midwest.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
munk-a 5y ago
We can do both. And we shouldn't ignore the 100yo polluters because they can make people more aware that the exact same irresponsible waste disposal that happened 100yo is still happening today under the guise of "clean industry". Also - I'd challenge the fact that people don't care about 100yo pollution if you've ever talked to someone living in the neighborhood of a superfund site.
pessimizer 5y ago
> having other bigger problems that are more deserving of resources. They just have fewer resources. But saying they "don't really care" is like saying that somebody who skips buying medicine to buy food doesn't really care about medicine.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  There's a difference between not having resources and simply having other problems that demand those resources. For example poor cities typically have to subsidize their trash pickup more (for equivalent results) because their residents won't just bend over and take fee for use, they'll burn it or dump it wherever. Poor people don't buy pet licenses so that means animal control gets more funding out of the general fund. Even if you take in equivalent money (which you don't) having poorer people to serve results in catches like this in every endeavor of municipal government from the library to the roads to the police.
  - rhizome 5y ago
    >There's a difference between not having resources and simply having other problems that demand those resources. A distinction without a difference, they're both "insufficient resources."
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      My comment and the parent comment are splitting the same hair in different directions. Please enlighten me as to why my comment is a distinction without a difference whereas the one I am replying to is not.
      - rhizome 5y ago
        The one you're replying to isn't making a distinction, that's why.
  - mjmahone17 5y ago
    > Even if you take in equivalent money (which you don't) having poorer people to serve results in catches like this in every endeavor of municipal government from the library to the roads to the police. This isn’t totally true. Poorer people frequently live and work on land that is substantially more economically productive. If you have 20 working adults using the same amount of space as a single family, you’ll usually have a lot more tax revenue from the same amount of land. Without requiring much more infrastructure. Which means in terms of tax revenue versus outlays, poorer districts frequently subsidize wealthier ones.
Thorrez 5y ago
> Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, finds that sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973. Following the trajectory we are on, Swan’s research suggests sperm counts could reach zero by 2045. > the average twentysomething woman today is less fertile than her grandmother was at 35 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/18/toxic-chemicals-health-humanity-erin-brokovich https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/18/toxic-... PFAS though are just one of the chemicals listed as the cause.

mikeyouse 5y ago

Which is a perfect role for a strong regulator -- towns shouldn't have to weigh the tradeoffs of being poisoned. FWIW, Rockford isn't a poor town in any case, median income is like $70k/year which is very comfortable in the Midwest.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

munk-a 5y ago

We can do both. And we shouldn't ignore the 100yo polluters because they can make people more aware that the exact same irresponsible waste disposal that happened 100yo is still happening today under the guise of "clean industry". Also - I'd challenge the fact that people don't care about 100yo pollution if you've ever talked to someone living in the neighborhood of a superfund site.

pessimizer 5y ago

> having other bigger problems that are more deserving of resources. They just have fewer resources. But saying they "don't really care" is like saying that somebody who skips buying medicine to buy food doesn't really care about medicine.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
There's a difference between not having resources and simply having other problems that demand those resources. For example poor cities typically have to subsidize their trash pickup more (for equivalent results) because their residents won't just bend over and take fee for use, they'll burn it or dump it wherever. Poor people don't buy pet licenses so that means animal control gets more funding out of the general fund. Even if you take in equivalent money (which you don't) having poorer people to serve results in catches like this in every endeavor of municipal government from the library to the roads to the police.
- rhizome 5y ago
  >There's a difference between not having resources and simply having other problems that demand those resources. A distinction without a difference, they're both "insufficient resources."
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    My comment and the parent comment are splitting the same hair in different directions. Please enlighten me as to why my comment is a distinction without a difference whereas the one I am replying to is not.
    - rhizome 5y ago
      The one you're replying to isn't making a distinction, that's why.
- mjmahone17 5y ago
  > Even if you take in equivalent money (which you don't) having poorer people to serve results in catches like this in every endeavor of municipal government from the library to the roads to the police. This isn’t totally true. Poorer people frequently live and work on land that is substantially more economically productive. If you have 20 working adults using the same amount of space as a single family, you’ll usually have a lot more tax revenue from the same amount of land. Without requiring much more infrastructure. Which means in terms of tax revenue versus outlays, poorer districts frequently subsidize wealthier ones.

Thorrez 5y ago

> Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, finds that sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973. Following the trajectory we are on, Swan’s research suggests sperm counts could reach zero by 2045. > the average twentysomething woman today is less fertile than her grandmother was at 35 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/18/toxic-chemicals-health-humanity-erin-brokovich https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/18/toxic-... PFAS though are just one of the chemicals listed as the cause.