Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

> He doesn't seem totally opposed to renewable energy sources:

He has a professional climate change denier[1] being trial-ballooned to run the EPA.

I think of all the question marks about Trumps seriousness and commitment to specific policy areas (and there are lots -- the guy is a blank slate), environmental issues are the least uncertain. The guy is a straight up head-in-the-sand opponent of anything that looks or smells like it might be one of those hippie "clean" things.

[1] Literally! Myron Ebell's day job is to write papers for a conservative think tank "debunking" climate science.

View on HN

Trump is bad for the environment (then again, all Presidents have been bad for the environment--nobody has the balls to do what needs to be done), but there are some bright sides. If you look at environmental harms in dollar terms, climate change isn't actually the most harmful thing: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/External_costs_of_coal.

Per kilowatt hour of coal-powered electricity, air pollution generates about three times more environmental externalities than the climate change effect. The effects of mining in Appalachia is significantly more harmful too.

Climate change is a sexy issue, but health damage from air pollutants tends to cause more actual health damage. Water pollution is a bigger issue too: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-editorials/very.... Ideally we'd address all three, but as a practical matter no U.S. President will take more than symbolic steps towards fixing climate change anyway.

It's not just presidents that don't have the balls, it's also consumers and other policy makers.

You do what you can.

Left my reusable plastic shopping bags at home again, so I took some out of the plastic bag recycling bin in the shopping centre. So then one of the staff from rhe supermarket told me I can take bags out of the plastic bag recycling bin because they belong to the company who recycles them.

What?

So, the situation we find ourselves in here is going to take some leadership.

> Climate change is a sexy issue, but health damage from air pollutants tends to cause more actual health damage.

Except that climate change will ultimately lead to absolute health damage for planet and all of its occupants.

That makes it way more important than health damage in the here and now, even though that's obviously easier to see and relate to.

You can grow new people (and voters). Takes about 18 years. However, making a new planet, or dropping the ocean levels, takes orders of magnitude longer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com