6 ms·

As a bike riding hippie in the age of video meetings and streaming, explain to me why the world elite need to fly all over the world in private jets to discuss

As a bike riding hippie in the age of video meetings and streaming, explain to me why the world elite need to fly all over the world in private jets to discuss climate change? Can you tell me why my grocery store stopped giving out free plastic bags by charging for them, and now phasing them out for paper, but they still sell plastic garbage bags and I can't reuse the grocery store bag for my garbage bag now? Can you tell me why bunker fuel for cargo ships which is a major driver for pollution isn't being stopped? Seems like there are a limited number of large ships creating a massive amount of emissions that would be go after. Can you explain why the phrase "Climate Change" is a better mission that "reduce pollution", which seems easier to understand and get behind for everyone?

fragmede 4y ago
I don't know about the others, but for the last one, "reduce pollution" only works if people, who aren't bike riding hippies by a large margin, see any point in reducing pollution. Why is pollution even bad, anyway? Seriously, factories have been working for centuries and nothing has gone wrong, so why should we regulate where they can pour their waste or make them pay for environmental nonsense like carbon capture? It's just this weird hippy tax that has no point since nothing has gone wrong. Climate change (because people were too stupid to use the phrase "global warming" without making fun of the "warming" part whenever it was remotely cold) encapsulates the need for people to care about pollution with the understanding that it may be future generations will reap the benefits in a way that "reduce pollution" does not.
- maxbond 4y ago
  (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33713513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33713513 ) > Seriously, factories have been working for centuries and nothing has gone wrong, so why should we regulate where they can pour their waste or make them pay for environmental nonsense like carbon capture? Pardon? Factories have caused all sorts of problems with discharge, intentional or unintentional. Here's some from the top of my head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster (mismanagement at a pesticide factory causes an explosion, poisoning many people and permanently contaminating the surrounding landscape). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease (a factory discharged mercury into the sea for years, where it interacted with anaerobic bacteria in the sediment to become incredibly deadly organic mercury and poisoned an entire town) Keep in mind, these are from the top of my head and I am a nonexpert; we have environmental regulations because people have been hurt or killed by pollution numerous times. Here's a quote that I hope will emphasize just how powerful pollution can be on an industrial scale: > Pollution was so heavy at the mouth of the wastewater canal, a figure of 2 kg of mercury per ton of sediment was measured: a level that would be economically viable to mine. Indeed, Chisso did later set up a subsidiary to reclaim and sell the mercury recovered from the sludge. They literally dumped enough mercury into the river to turn it into a mercury mine. If that doesn't convince you that factories haven't simply been operating with "nothing going wrong", then I don't know what to say.
  - hombre_fatal 4y ago
    Presumably, in that "Seriously, ..." quote, rather than asking an earnest question, the HNer was roleplaying their idea of the general population that's resistant to "reduce pollution" messaging.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxbond 4y ago
      Maybe. I've reread the comment and it can be read either way. Worst case scenario is that my comment remains correct but tone deaf, so I'm not going to retract it, but am open to a correction if GGP chooses to offer one.
      - fragmede 4y ago
        Factories have done unmeasurable damage to our ecosystem, that is unequivocable. But we had to rename it climate change because people couldn't get over the phrase global warming whenever it was cold so I don't see "Reduce Pollution!" as a winning slogan. People who care, care about the underlying concept no matter what it's called. People who don't care don't believe it's a problem in the first place and won't do anything to reduce pollution.
        maxbond 4y ago
        Well, I disagree with the cynicism (as I believe people are caring more & more) but my bad on misinterpreting.
        fragmede 4y ago
        but thank you for sticking up for planet Earth!
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    it's not long since it was normal for rivers to set on fire: https://history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-river-fire-clean-water-act https://history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-ri...
- baud147258 4y ago
  > Climate change (because people were too stupid to use the phrase "global warming" without making fun of the "warming" part whenever it was remotely cold) I think climate change works better anyway, as global warming caused other changes, not just a rise in average temperatures
- newsclues 4y ago
  If people are too stupid to understand pollution is bad and should be reduced (most people will agree to this, just talk to them about it in a garage with the door shut and a truck running inside), how are they going to understand climate change, which is a more obscure term without a direct meaning? If the general public needs to be convinced of a project to save the planet climate change is not good messaging!
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  And yet people are terrified of radiation at any level, of carcinogen at aspartame level danger, from "toxins", from evil Chinese poisoned food, from modified genetics plants and foodstuffs. But a direct scientific link to ... well, almost all of those fears is totally acceptable because we love our cars? The world... is insane.
WalterBright 4y ago
Because the government uses ban hammers instead of simply taxing the amount of pollution emitted.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  And if they tax it, people will complain about cost-shifting, saying the consumer should pay, and accuse the taxes for driving inflation etc. I am in favor of making polluters account for negative externalities, it's been a long-theme of my comments here), but I've noticed that people are adept at inventing new bases of objection. Perhaps you could suggest a place where the pollution taxation approach has worked and the enforcement has teeth, which you would be happy to see implemented here even though it might come with short-term costs.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Cost incentives work. It's why people buy cars that get more mpg. Why wouldn't they prefer to buy a car that engenders a lower pollution tax?
    - rgmerk 4y ago
      If by “people” you mean “Americans”, they buy F-150s to go to the grocery store, and they vote out governments that threaten their ability to do so. Taxing pollution, particularly consumer-facing taxes, has a long history of political failure, whereas subsidising clean technology has a long history of political and technical success.
      - waldothedog 4y ago
        *F-250
        rjbwork 4y ago
        Saw an F-450 the other day... granted, it was at the gun range, but I was there in my compact hatchback and it had not a spec of dust on it.
Aeolun 4y ago
> but they still sell plastic garbage bags You ever tried to put the drippy nasty stuff in a paper trash bag?
- manwe150 4y ago
  My understanding was that it is not about the bag, but where it tends to end up afterwards. Trash bags mostly end up in landfills, where they do no harm. Grocery bags by contrast have a higher tendency to be mis-identified as recyclable and then get caught by the wind and blown somewhere bad.
- brnt 4y ago
  I agree completely with the point here, but why are you buying drippy nasty stuff?
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    I was talking about leftover foodstuffs :)
    - myshpa 4y ago
      That's exactly the stuff that doesn't belong in the landfill, compost it.
      - Aeolun 4y ago
        It still needs to be kept in my kitchen until whatever happens to it happens.
megablast 4y ago
Bunker fuel is being phased out.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Far too late and slowly and I’m skeptical of the enforcement. The cargo ship owning class of wealthy people don’t not care about laws.
MorrisMinor 4y ago
Shipping is < 3% of global emissions. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shipping-environment-imo-idUSKCN2502AY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shipping-environment-imo-...

fragmede 4y ago

I don't know about the others, but for the last one, "reduce pollution" only works if people, who aren't bike riding hippies by a large margin, see any point in reducing pollution. Why is pollution even bad, anyway? Seriously, factories have been working for centuries and nothing has gone wrong, so why should we regulate where they can pour their waste or make them pay for environmental nonsense like carbon capture? It's just this weird hippy tax that has no point since nothing has gone wrong. Climate change (because people were too stupid to use the phrase "global warming" without making fun of the "warming" part whenever it was remotely cold) encapsulates the need for people to care about pollution with the understanding that it may be future generations will reap the benefits in a way that "reduce pollution" does not.

maxbond 4y ago
(See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33713513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33713513 ) > Seriously, factories have been working for centuries and nothing has gone wrong, so why should we regulate where they can pour their waste or make them pay for environmental nonsense like carbon capture? Pardon? Factories have caused all sorts of problems with discharge, intentional or unintentional. Here's some from the top of my head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster (mismanagement at a pesticide factory causes an explosion, poisoning many people and permanently contaminating the surrounding landscape). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease (a factory discharged mercury into the sea for years, where it interacted with anaerobic bacteria in the sediment to become incredibly deadly organic mercury and poisoned an entire town) Keep in mind, these are from the top of my head and I am a nonexpert; we have environmental regulations because people have been hurt or killed by pollution numerous times. Here's a quote that I hope will emphasize just how powerful pollution can be on an industrial scale: > Pollution was so heavy at the mouth of the wastewater canal, a figure of 2 kg of mercury per ton of sediment was measured: a level that would be economically viable to mine. Indeed, Chisso did later set up a subsidiary to reclaim and sell the mercury recovered from the sludge. They literally dumped enough mercury into the river to turn it into a mercury mine. If that doesn't convince you that factories haven't simply been operating with "nothing going wrong", then I don't know what to say.
- hombre_fatal 4y ago
  Presumably, in that "Seriously, ..." quote, rather than asking an earnest question, the HNer was roleplaying their idea of the general population that's resistant to "reduce pollution" messaging.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Maybe. I've reread the comment and it can be read either way. Worst case scenario is that my comment remains correct but tone deaf, so I'm not going to retract it, but am open to a correction if GGP chooses to offer one.
    - fragmede 4y ago
      Factories have done unmeasurable damage to our ecosystem, that is unequivocable. But we had to rename it climate change because people couldn't get over the phrase global warming whenever it was cold so I don't see "Reduce Pollution!" as a winning slogan. People who care, care about the underlying concept no matter what it's called. People who don't care don't believe it's a problem in the first place and won't do anything to reduce pollution.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        Well, I disagree with the cynicism (as I believe people are caring more & more) but my bad on misinterpreting.
        fragmede 4y ago
        but thank you for sticking up for planet Earth!
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  it's not long since it was normal for rivers to set on fire: https://history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-river-fire-clean-water-act https://history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-ri...
baud147258 4y ago
> Climate change (because people were too stupid to use the phrase "global warming" without making fun of the "warming" part whenever it was remotely cold) I think climate change works better anyway, as global warming caused other changes, not just a rise in average temperatures
newsclues 4y ago
If people are too stupid to understand pollution is bad and should be reduced (most people will agree to this, just talk to them about it in a garage with the door shut and a truck running inside), how are they going to understand climate change, which is a more obscure term without a direct meaning? If the general public needs to be convinced of a project to save the planet climate change is not good messaging!
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
And yet people are terrified of radiation at any level, of carcinogen at aspartame level danger, from "toxins", from evil Chinese poisoned food, from modified genetics plants and foodstuffs. But a direct scientific link to ... well, almost all of those fears is totally acceptable because we love our cars? The world... is insane.

WalterBright 4y ago

Because the government uses ban hammers instead of simply taxing the amount of pollution emitted.

anigbrowl 4y ago
And if they tax it, people will complain about cost-shifting, saying the consumer should pay, and accuse the taxes for driving inflation etc. I am in favor of making polluters account for negative externalities, it's been a long-theme of my comments here), but I've noticed that people are adept at inventing new bases of objection. Perhaps you could suggest a place where the pollution taxation approach has worked and the enforcement has teeth, which you would be happy to see implemented here even though it might come with short-term costs.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Cost incentives work. It's why people buy cars that get more mpg. Why wouldn't they prefer to buy a car that engenders a lower pollution tax?
  - rgmerk 4y ago
    If by “people” you mean “Americans”, they buy F-150s to go to the grocery store, and they vote out governments that threaten their ability to do so. Taxing pollution, particularly consumer-facing taxes, has a long history of political failure, whereas subsidising clean technology has a long history of political and technical success.
    - waldothedog 4y ago
      *F-250
      - rjbwork 4y ago
        Saw an F-450 the other day... granted, it was at the gun range, but I was there in my compact hatchback and it had not a spec of dust on it.

Aeolun 4y ago

> but they still sell plastic garbage bags You ever tried to put the drippy nasty stuff in a paper trash bag?

manwe150 4y ago
My understanding was that it is not about the bag, but where it tends to end up afterwards. Trash bags mostly end up in landfills, where they do no harm. Grocery bags by contrast have a higher tendency to be mis-identified as recyclable and then get caught by the wind and blown somewhere bad.
brnt 4y ago
I agree completely with the point here, but why are you buying drippy nasty stuff?
- Aeolun 4y ago
  I was talking about leftover foodstuffs :)
  - myshpa 4y ago
    That's exactly the stuff that doesn't belong in the landfill, compost it.
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      It still needs to be kept in my kitchen until whatever happens to it happens.

megablast 4y ago

Bunker fuel is being phased out.

newsclues 4y ago
Far too late and slowly and I’m skeptical of the enforcement. The cargo ship owning class of wealthy people don’t not care about laws.

MorrisMinor 4y ago

Shipping is < 3% of global emissions. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shipping-environment-imo-idUSKCN2502AY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shipping-environment-imo-...