3 ms·
That's really moving the goal posts. Who's to say the fuel industry couldn't have chosen a different substance that's poisonous in some other way? It's fundam
by ravenstine 4y ago
That's really moving the goal posts. Who's to say the fuel industry couldn't have chosen a different substance that's poisonous in some other way? It's fundamentally the same argument. Lead being a universally poisonous element just made the decision easy. I agree that bans can and probably often do backfire, but it's not as simple as either never banning things or instead whitelisting things to be allowed.
- corrral 4y agoIt's not moving the goalposts, the two actions are meaningfully different. Lead is basically always dangerous, so "no lead" is an easy call and has the desired effect. The lead, specifically, was causing the entire problem, and it'll keep doing so pretty much no matter how you arrange other elements around it. Some other compounds to replace it might be dangerous, but essentially every lead compound is going to be dangerous. Carbon compounds, meanwhile, are practically endless and there's no one quality you can point to and say "that, that right there is the problem, ban that part". Piecemeal bans won't work.
- samatman 4y agoThey did actually, it's called MTBE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether#Regulation_and_litigation_in_the_U.S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether#Regula....