Hacker News Reader

Comment by EarthIsHome | Hacker News Reader

I'll preface by saying I'm not trying to downplay cars or the roads.. but doesn't almost everything we consume make pollution in a non-negligible quantity? e.g. when cars are manufactured, the plastics we use, livestock, etc. It's a multifaceted problem that won't be fixed by changing one thing like cars or the roads.

View on HN

I think this is some sort of falacy. Everything pollutes, but substituting something polluting a lot, with something polluting half as much, can make a big difference. There are lots of gains to be had in the amount things pollute.

I see this come up really frequently when talking about environmental impact "We can't replace X with Y because Y has negative environmental impacts!"

Never mind the fact that Y might be a lot better for the environment than X in the long run.

A good example of this is hydro power. Yes, concrete emits a lot of CO2. Yes, dams negatively impact fish. Yes, rotting dam algae emit CO2.

But you know what? None of that matters, because dams emit far less CO2 than comparable coal plants and, as a bonus, dams work really well with solar/wind because they can ramp with demand. They are basically giant batteries that self fill.

Nuclear falls well within the same bucket of "Yes, it has negative impacts, those are far less than global warming".

For example, nuclear powered shipping would be a huge positive for the environment. Bunker fuel is one of the worst things we spew into the atmosphere.

I feel this is a really deep problem in our society that is a core contributing factor to all sorts of problems. We can’t build major public works projects, can’t build enough housing, can’t execute on anti-pandemic measures. Any big public endeavor is mired in veto points where any issue, no matter how minor compared to the upsides, can lead to delays or total failure of the project. It seems like only private companies can get anything done. It’s good that somebody is able to get things done, but it would be better if that somebody had a charter to act in the public’s interest first.

To add a confounding factor, the public's best interests aren't generally private entities best interest.

They know this and lobby/advertise/etc to get public opinion and officials on their side.

There's plenty examples of this. For example, early on when nuclear came out fossil fuel companies spent a LOT of money spreading FUD about nuclear. Much of that still exists today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement

==It's a multifaceted problem that won't be fixed by changing one thing like cars or the roads.==

I don't see anybody suggesting it would. On the other hand, we can't know the negative impact until we study it. Once we study something, we can add it to the list, and stack rank based on cost-benefit.

Those forms of pollution are concentrated in areas where people aren't living in large amounts.

This form is right next to every house and apartment complex and much worse in cities where large amounts of people live.

Much worse in certain cities which have huge road networks, high car dependence, and no cobblestone to speak of. LA comes to mind. Rome does not. (to pick two extremes)

Local air pollution is a problem somewhat orthogonal to general carbon emissions/ecosystem damage that're far from where humans live. Both problems are important, but there's nothing wrong with recognizing that they're different harms. Reducing local air pollution is still a worthwhile goal to discuss without having to take on the task of making the entire modern economy less polluting. (For a historical example, consider the removal of leaded gasoline/paint)

All money spent causes pollution if you trace it back far enough. As a first approximation, environmental impact is directly proportional to cost.

That’s an oversimplification, if nothing else because you can spend money to save money. Likewise you can make a monetary expenditure to prevent other more environmentally costly expenditures.

It's not a bad approximation. More flights, bigger houses, bigger cars, more toys, faster computers. They all cost more and all have a bigger environmental impact. There are a few things where spending will decrease your emissions, loft insulation, possibly replacing your petrol car with an EV, definitely replacing it with an e-bike.

Even if there are savings made what do people do with their reduced energy costs? Mostly buy more products/services.

To some extent yes, but that is different from the claim, which is about "all money."

But also, you're neglecting things like cheaper parts tending to be worse for the environment. Comparatively expensive wood, for instance, would likely cause fewer problems than cheaper plastics. Plus, that's true by virtue of the cheaper parts breaking sooner and needing to be replaced. It's certainly not a universal that luxury goods are eco-friendly, but it is true that eco-friendliness is a factor that requires a premium to be paid for it.

I don't think that's necessarily a very good or helpful approximation. It's very cheap to send vaste chemicals into the sea. It's more expensive to capture them -- and while it might pollute to build a good capture system, it'll _very_ quickly be outweighed by not sending the stuff into the sea.

Due to the lack of externalities being reflected in the cost of fossil fuels, I don’t think that is true.

Environmental impact due to fossil fuels is proportional to energy consumed, which is probably roughly proportional to mass times distance traveled.

I’m sure there’s lots of different types of environmental impact not priced in such as excess heat caused by paved surfaces, air pollution caused by particulates from tires and brakes and fuel exhaust, water table pollution caused by waste seeping down through the earth, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com