4 ms·
Rules to improve air quality are under attack
- Mistletoe 2y ago[flagged]
- frostyel 2y ago[dead]
- lionkor 2y agoDon't you think that it's maybe time for discussion and stopping the us vs. them? This is where it got you guys.
- jrflowers 2y agoI love this post. “have u tried holing hands w/ the guy shitting in ur gas tank? if it is happening it is ur fault :Ddd~~” is 10/10
- BugsJustFindMe 2y agoOk. What would you like to discuss?
- beeflet 2y agowhy come they aint got so much taxes
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- raffraffraff 2y agoAs I said somewhere else, Trump didn't win the election, the Democrats drove voters away. This isn't a platform for getting deep into the nitty gritty of that statement but it's true for some many people who either didn't vote (not out of apathy) or switched sides (not because they like Trump). It's a protest. And a hope that the democrats will change, or out of the ashes a 3rd party comes along, because they think (or maybe hope) that the Democrats are fucked. A country of hundreds of millions of people can do so much better that the two parties that you've got right now. I like that option... Get out of the mindset of "I _have_ to vote for these idiots or the assholes will get in". What's the worst that can happen? This. You're living it right now. Might as well use that fire that it lights inside you to build something else. Because I guarantee you there are millions of Republican voters who also wish there was some other option that wasn't the Democrats. That number is growing right now. And when you do create a new party, let it use sanity, instead of looking at the other bozos and just doing the opposite of what they do. Use it to reach across the aisles and pluck out the sane, reasonable people who just want pragmatism. People who respect the need for cooperation, diplomacy, sound reasoning.
- inductive_magic 2y agoMurc's law
- lynx97 2y ago[dead]
- lawn 2y agoCalling for stopping us vs them with a "you guys". Oh the irony.
- tankenmate 2y agoA solution that works is proportional representation (PR) but generally this is a very hard sell when the there is such entrenched support for first past the post (FPTP) within the dominant parties' organising bodies. Another linked but more indirect issue is to tax the very rich, but this that is a much longer conversation.
- Xiol32 2y agoYou can't convince people who have a completely unhinged view of reality.
- freddie_mercury 2y agoWhat does that have to with the article? The article is about a decision by California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
- Mistletoe 2y agoWith a neutered EPA do we expect things to get better or worse with regard to things like this?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- toenail 2y agoZero emissions sounds like a silly goal anyway, 80/20 and all that.
- Manfred 2y agoIt's about zero direct emissions in densely populated areas. It's to prevent people from sitting in their own poop, so to say.
- atoav 2y agoTell me you have no idea of climate science without telling me you have no idea of climate science. The zero net emission (NZE) scenario was chosen because of the effect that it would have on the climate, not because some "guy wants to be a perfectionist". See also: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-climate-model/net-zero-emissions-by-2050-scenario-nze https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-climate-model/... The climate is a complex matter and we globally have many bright people on the problem. If you see yourself armchairing on that topic, you might consider that you just don't know enough.
- _fizz_buzz_ 2y agoWe technically need negative emissions starting today. The zero-emissions goal by 2050 is already the very generous compromise.
- atoav 2y agoExactly. It is a bit like doing an emergency break with a train that is about to roll into a pit filled with lava. You need to break way ahead to avoid the lava pit. 80/20 breaking still lands you in the lava pit. And the later you decide to break, the harder that breaking will have to be. Until at some point breaking alone is no longer enough. That is where we are.
- toenail 2y agoYou had a chance to educate me, but you chose to attack me on a personal level instead, and you defend a policy that sets a goal that must be reached at all cost with a disregard for any negative effects.
- lovich 2y agoI think rules as a concept are kinda under attack. This ranks really below my radar on shit to care about in the current situation. Is there a steelmanned argument on why this matters for anyone atm?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Ardren 2y agoReading the comments HN in general, you wouldn't think anything else was under attack.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago100,000 American deaths per year due to poor air quality.
- lovich 2y agoWhat’s that as a percentage of population? This is a technology forum, we are all aware of the law of large numbers. Is (100,000) an acceptable rate or note
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThere are 3.3 million deaths annually in the US. So 3% of deaths are due to air pollution. That's a very large number.
- idrathernot 2y agoHow many deaths would there have been if people did not have access to the technologies that create air pollution? If every CO2/pollution emitting device (cars, power plants, metal production, food processing, coal mines, etc) were all to be shuttered or massively cut back at once, deaths would increase substantially more. Yeah air pollution is bad but I think the solution needs to be incentive/reward based rather than punitive.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- defrost 2y agoIn other parts of the planet: Dramatic fall in London’s levels of deadly pollutants after Ulez expansion People in London have been breathing significantly cleaner air since the expansion of the ultra low emission zone (Ulez), a study has found. Levels of deadly pollutants that are linked to a wide range of health problems – from cancer to impaired lung development, heart attacks to premature births – have dropped, with some of the biggest improvements coming in the capital’s most deprived areas. ~ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/07/london-air-pollution-down-since-ulez-expansion-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/07/london-a... HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43288041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43288041 Who'd have thought vehicle emissions were so bad and that life could be better by reducing usage in dense urban areas?
- jisnsm 2y agoI don’t know. You can ask those poor people who can’t afford to buy a new “eco” car and are now unable to drive if they feel like their lives are better now. Maybe they have something to say about it, but ecologists may not want to hear it. (Or, more realistically, they will ignore what people want, because intellectuals know better)
- MagnumOpus 2y agoThere are barely any of those. Even 19-year-old cars still qualify for ULEZ exemption as do really old beaters so only cars that are between 20 and 40 years old have to avoid the zone or pay.
- jisnsm 2y agoThat is completely false. Diesel cars, which are what the poors drive, are only allowed if they are from 2015 or newer (Euro 6)
- tim333 2y agoReally? Are you from the area? I live there and don't know any poors driving diesels. It has been a cost for some businesses with diesel vans who have had to update but such is life. It was a bit of a pain for me as I ended up swapping my 31 year old car for a 12 year old car but I'd rather have clean air and the 31 year old was getting a bit rusty anyway. The change in air quality has made a big difference for me, I've been central for ~18 years and was thinking of moving out because the pollution was making my eyes sting all the time but it's much better now. Partly ULEZ and partly other stuff like the taxis going electric and the busses getting better engines.