[HN Gopher] 17Bn life years could be saved if air pollution was ...
___________________________________________________________________
17Bn life years could be saved if air pollution was reduced to WHO
standards
Author : nixass
Score : 213 points
Date : 2021-09-12 19:01 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tribunemag.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (tribunemag.co.uk)
| fnord77 wrote:
| with global warming, shouldn't we be looking to reduce life-
| years?
|
| the longer a person is alive, the bigger their carbon footprint
| beervirus wrote:
| The exact same reasoning justifies murder.
| notanzaiiswear wrote:
| Never mind that billions of people are only alive because of
| fossil fuels, and it is so far not really proven that they can be
| kept alive without them. That kind of calculation seems rather
| silly.
| kovek wrote:
| Interesting! Young adults are comfortable today. There's
| infrastructure to support them. Would society survive with
| suddenly less efficient processes? Everyone needs to pay
| rent/food/products, but modern transport and manufacturing are
| suddenly not useable. So, how to source items to do
| work/survive? I'm sure one solution would be to relocate. Some
| cities/societies exist with less efficient processes.
| tommymachine wrote:
| Which Chinese country do you guys think pollutes the most?
| randombits0 wrote:
| How would life-years be affected by economic and political
| changes needed to affect WHO standards and within what time
| frame?
|
| See? It's a hard problem. Humans are inherently chaotic.
| morpheos137 wrote:
| On HN we are not supposed to accuse people of shilling but I see
| a steady drumbeat of low-brow populist evironmental advocacy
| links on this site every single day. Often the pieces are not
| even scientifically justified. At what point does this specific
| genre of "general interest" posts become disproportionate? This
| after all is supposed to be an IT tech start up focused site.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| It's not shilling.
|
| The users here are interested in these things. Are some of them
| "things the users _want_ to hear"? Definitely. But there are
| great articles from time to time. Flag the bad ones and move
| along.
| meeshoo wrote:
| I think there has been a miscalculation. It's 17.26 billion
| years, not 17 billion years.
| IAmLiterallyAB wrote:
| ...I swear HN comments get dumber every day. Is this satire???
| meeshoo wrote:
| That is not satire. Satire is recognized as such by smart
| people and you are a smart person, because you don't like
| dumb comments. Ergo, since a smart person like yourself
| didn't see satire, there is none. QED.
| eCa wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding
| meeshoo wrote:
| I know they rounded up that number, but that's not correct,
| nor scientific. Do we fucking love science or not? 0.1
| billion years is 100 million years, you can't just round them
| up like they don't mean anything.
| IAmLiterallyAB wrote:
| It's perfectly acceptable to round in an article summary
| like this. Such a ridiculous thing to complain about
| climate_death wrote:
| Yes, 260 million years is nothing to sneeze at, especially
| considering that earth is only about 5,000 years old!
| nikkinana wrote:
| It's great with all the quarantine going on, we all stay home and
| no air pollution! Problem solved! What's next, a water shortage?
| danr4 wrote:
| Aren't we heading towards overpopulation? in the case... is that
| a... "good" thing? Seriously curious. 17B is alot.
| occz wrote:
| > Aren't we heading towards overpopulation?
|
| No. Population growth slows down as nations rise in economic
| prosperity, and is projected to cap out at around 11 billion.
| legutierr wrote:
| Improved quality of life and reduced infant mortality are shown
| to reduce population growth by creating incentives for people
| to have fewer children. If you want fewer people, then you want
| to improve the material well-being if as many people as
| possible. As it stands, the global population is projected to
| peak at around 10 billion people some time this century, per
| current trends.
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| >If you want fewer people, then you want to improve the
| material well-being of as many people as possible.
|
| I'd genuinely like to see that model applied to sub Saharan
| Africa.
| foxfluff wrote:
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-by-
| gdp...
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| So you are suggesting that the per-capita material well-
| being in Nigeria has gone down all this time?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria#/me
| dia...
|
| I don't doubt that wealth can be a factor, but those
| systems are a whole lot more complicated than that.
| Money+Low Gini = Low birthrate is a meme as much as it is
| a primary driver.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| I think this is incomplete. In every case so far a reduction
| of infant mortality and improved quality of life are coupled
| with power structures that increase the amount of productive
| output that is captured by a family, increasing the relative
| cost of producing children.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| Your argument could be as easily used to say "maybe mass murder
| isn't a bad thing."
|
| The early death of a person who would prefer continue living
| is, to reasonable people, a tragedy.
|
| If overpopulation is really such a problem, I'd think
| incentivizing the choice to have fewer kids is a reasonable
| one.
| drivebycomment wrote:
| Most people die due to various diseases / accident / suicides,
| thus extending human lives collectively means reducing those
| human suffering. Implying extending collective human lives as
| "bad" is basically declaring you don't care about people's
| suffering and that you'd rather choose more suffering.
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| While I agree with you on overpopulation, I would guess that
| the 17B number comes from 8B * 2.something years.
|
| Back of the envelope, it's odd that air pollution is around
| 100x as bad as cigarettes (which admittedly not everyone
| smokes).
| runesoerensen wrote:
| Would you consider it a good thing if air pollution kills
| _you_?
| [deleted]
| junon wrote:
| To be fair to the GP, this isn't the point they're making.
| Your argument would be valid if they were positing "it's not
| like it's _me_ who 's going to die."
|
| They're asking, in good faith, if the effects of pollution-
| related deaths would have a net benefit to the world due to
| overpopulation concerns.
|
| Your response is a strawman.
| codetrotter wrote:
| From the Wikipedia article on Human overpopulation:
|
| > The concept of overpopulation is controversial. A 2015
| article in Nature listed overpopulation as a pervasive science
| myth. Demographic projections suggest that population growth
| will stabilise in the 21st century, and many experts believe
| that global resources can meet this increased demand,
| suggesting a global overpopulation scenario is unlikely.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation
| ta1234567890 wrote:
| > suggesting a global overpopulation scenario is unlikely.
|
| The world is already overpopulated. We just haven't
| completely destroyed it yet.
|
| The way we currently run the world is not sustainable long
| term for even the current population.
| ben_w wrote:
| The first statement does not follow automatically from the
| second.
|
| It is not currently run in a sustainable way. It can be,
| and people are trying change it so it is sustainable. This
| is hard, but does not appear to be impossible.
| ta1234567890 wrote:
| > It is not currently run in a sustainable way. It can be
|
| Can it? That remains to be seen. So in the meantime I
| would say we are already overpopulated.
|
| To be fair, your statement probably means that we have
| the resources and technology to run the world in a
| sustainable way, and I would agree with that. But then we
| also likely have the resources to end hunger, poverty and
| war, yet those have never been the world's priorities.
|
| When will it be a priority for humans to run the world
| sustainably? Who knows. But right now it's definitely not
| sustainable.
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| >It is not currently run in a sustainable way.
|
| which creates something of a tautology. Ability to
| maintain a population in the long run implies
| 'sustainable'. I guess that given nutrient vats and
| fusion power we could have a sustainable population of
| one trillion.
|
| It's worth considering what the point of having so many
| people is....
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "It's worth considering what the point of having so many
| people is...."
|
| What's the point of having people at all, right?
|
| Once you answer those questions, is there a number of
| people you'd like to propose as optimal?
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| >Once you answer those questions, is there a number of
| people you'd like to propose as optimal?
|
| That's a good question. I'll take a shot at it even
| though you're not really asking a question but making a
| point.
|
| Let's say that the one thing that people bring to the
| table is intelligence and the ability to design complex
| systems, it's something of an end-run on evolution.
|
| How large a population do you need to build modern
| semiconductors, discover exoplanets, solve physics
| problems, do a passable version of the arts?
|
| I would guess something on the order of 500M-1B which is
| roughly the number in 1800. You get most of the good and
| lose most of the bad if you're even slightly careful. The
| edge conditions of atomic war or a truly large nuclear
| incident still exist but the rest of our sins cover up
| well over time with that population.
| eplanit wrote:
| To suggest that overpopulation is controversial is itself
| absurd, as it is fundamental to the science of biology[1].
| That a species can reach numbers where their environment and
| habitat is depleted or otherwise unlivable is fact, not
| controversy.
|
| "Population Control" is certainly controversial, though, as
| it should be. And, though controversial, it should be
| considered seriously. Many environmentalists lose their
| credibility by speaking of "sustainability" on the one hand,
| but then disputing overpopulation on the other. We need to
| impact the earth much less, and keeping our numbers down is a
| very effective way of doing so. That, _plus_ using energy and
| resources more cleanly and efficiently.
|
| [1] https://biologydictionary.net/overpopulation/
| burlesona wrote:
| As you're asking in good faith I don't see why you're being
| downvoted.
|
| Population carrying capacity is difficult. We know that given a
| particular level of technology we can support a particular
| number of people with global resources in the short term.
| Intuitively it seems like we're wrecking the environment and
| we're in for a nasty fall when we exhaust those resources.
| However, Malthusian predictions like that - so far - have a bad
| track record, because with more people comes more innovation,
| and so far that innovation has been increasing carrying
| capacity faster than population growth.
|
| Ultimately it looks like the world population is going to
| stabilize as most people seem to prefer smaller family units
| once they achieve "western level" of child survival
| expectations and material wealth. Strangely enough it may be
| harder to maintain a stable population with our consumption
| habits if it means that technological advance slows down.
|
| That said, for most people all the above is unimportant
| compared to caring for the living. Preserving and extending
| life and quality of life is fundamentally good, and shortening
| human lives to "save the planet" is not. So while you can have
| the macro level discussion along the lines of "do we really
| want the population to increase," for most people if you
| venture into "should we just let the people who are already
| alive die sooner than they must" is pretty offensive.
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| I just assume that any population level that can't be
| maintained on pre-20C. technology is probably dangerous.
| You'll either see a crack-up in terms of society and/or
| resource depletion at some point.
| amelius wrote:
| Too bad that addressing the issue is once again political
| suicide.
| clairity wrote:
| imagine if we directed as much attention as covid is getting
| toward such a more insidious, and more tractable, problem like
| air (and water) pollution. we could really do something in a
| relatively short time (like 2-5 years). for instance, we could
| measurably reduce air pollution by replacing the top 25 most
| polluting power plants (coal). that might cost on the order of a
| 100 billion dollars, but that's less than 1% of america's gdp,
| nevermind the world's.
| DudeInBasement wrote:
| Those power plants are in China. Good luck
| rocky1138 wrote:
| The fourth largest coal plant is in Taiwan.
| jointpdf wrote:
| Here is a map of all coal-fired power plants in the United
| States: https://coal.sierraclub.org/coal-plant-map
| foxfluff wrote:
| The most carbon emitting plant is in Poland. https://en.wikip
| edia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Stat...
|
| "The plant releases each year more carbon dioxide than the
| entire country of Switzerland."
| belltaco wrote:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-26/china-
| s-c...
| kiba wrote:
| Improving our air will probably improve COVID survival rate.
|
| One of the four main comorbidities contributing to covid death
| are cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and chronic respiratory
| disease.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Sounds like some good long term planning. But if Covid is the
| issue, isn't it time to discuss the correlation between
| obesity and covid hospitalization? Sounds like in the short
| term, a war on obesity (sugar) would help more than anything.
| kiba wrote:
| Yes. Fighting obesity decreases the risk of cancer,
| diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
|
| Although I consider fighting obesity more of a long term
| effort.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| pollution kills slowly, and as a result is imperceptible to the
| public
|
| covid hysteria is just getting started. years from now, decent
| people will lament that covid hysteria continues to suck all of
| the oxygen out of the room...and when they do, they will be
| cancelled
|
| fifty years from now, no one will admit to having been part of
| the covid mobs...but for now, they rule the world
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| I expect pollution to be as much of a driver of the push for
| electric cars as climate change. It's something that affects
| people directly, immediately and noticeably - it stinks.
|
| If I had a vote whether to ban combustion engines from my city
| (cars, trucks, mopeds, leaf blowers - everything), with a
| relatively short transition period (say 5 years), I'd be in
| favor.
|
| It would probably initially drive up prices of goods due to a
| shortage of electric delivery vehicles or the need to repack
| everything onto smaller local trucks outside the city, but I
| think it'd be worth it.
| timwaagh wrote:
| It will have to be done at some point. It's also an unjust
| policy to leave these ice vehicles riding around because not
| everybody is allowed to drive but everybody suffers the loss of
| life due to pollution. Before there was no alternative, but now
| there is one there is ample justification for a ban.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > I expect pollution to be as much of a driver of the push for
| electric cars as climate change. It's something that affects
| people directly, immediately and noticeably - it stinks.
|
| Ya, this is why I expect China to follow through with their EV
| plans much more thoroughly than the USA. Global warming is
| abstract, but bad dirty air is a very concrete motivator. For
| that reason, urban in the states with bad air pollution like LA
| or Salt Lake City should be big into this also (though bad in
| the USA is 100+ 2.5 PPM, whereas in China it is 300+ 2.5 PPM).
| duxup wrote:
| I remember my first trips to Europe. I was from a suburban
| (although not connected to an urban center) town in the Midwest
| USA. After a few days in the city my eyes were red and itchy.
| Took me a bit to figure out it wasn't allergies to something
| new... it was just the vehicle exhaust.
|
| The smell of diesel exhaust still makes me think of London,
| Paris... etc. Somehow that imprinted on me. They're actually
| good memories, but just an unusual spell to associate them
| with.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| it depends on where.
|
| Milan, albeit much smaller, is times worse than Rome.
|
| Paris and London are another example of big offenders, while
| Barcelona is not.
| obedm wrote:
| I lived in cities all my life, until two years ago when I
| moved to the very green suburbs of Budapest.
|
| Now, Whenever we go to the city, I notice how much it stinks.
|
| It's so weird because I never noticed that before. My nose
| for used to "clean" hair now. And I don't even live away from
| the road.
|
| I'd like to move even more into the woods.
| occz wrote:
| This might depend on which city you refer to. For example,
| I wouldn't say that Stockholm has any discernable smell to
| it.
| emj wrote:
| Stockholm is built on islands that helps, and the rains
| are not frequent but heavy enough to clean the city a
| bit, waste management is good. Thera are also fewer
| people are active in the center of Stockholm compared to
| Paris; Stockholm 5 214 pop/km2, Paris 20 909 pop/km2
| (this disregards important factors about how those
| numbers work, but it's an interesting indication.)
| geerlingguy wrote:
| I notice it's worse in cities with extremely dense urban
| cores, like NYC. There was a distinct smell (not just
| garbage, but something I basically call 'the NYC smell'
| in my head) in many parts. Other cities never seemed
| quite so bad; at least not bad enough I can still
| remember that smell.
| occz wrote:
| I've never been to NYC, but I've heard that waste
| management infrastructure is not great there. Could that
| be contributing to bad smells?
| beebeepka wrote:
| Maybe Stockholm has plenty of wind? Big cities tend to
| stink. Didn't bother me until my 30s, now I can barely
| tolerate the smell, not just the fact that it kills us.
|
| But hey, people want cars. Lots of dirty but cheap cars.
| Almost nobody seems to care. It's just the nature of
| living in a poor country I guess.
| occz wrote:
| Stockholm isn't particularly windy.
|
| I think cars generally contribute to bad smells, and poor
| waste management infrastructure can also contribute to
| bad smells (think garbage bins out on streets instead of
| enclosed, for example)
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I get this after I spend a few days at my parents' house and
| go back to Paris, and they live only 50 km away.
|
| I feel this quite strongly since I get around by motorcycle,
| so I don't have the benefit of filters and whatnot that cars
| have.
|
| Whenever I do this, I keep wondering what the lungs of people
| commuting every day look like, since I get a dry cough even
| when traffic isn't all that dense.
| yumraj wrote:
| > I feel this quite strongly since I get around by
| motorcycle, so I don't have the benefit of filters and
| whatnot that cars have.
|
| Are there no helmets with integrated filters? Perhaps
| something like the Stormtrooper's helmets? If not, wonder
| if someone should come up with those..
| hhjinks wrote:
| I lived in Berlin for a year and literally can't go to big
| cities anymore. The pollution triggers my asthma to the point I
| have continuous attacks despite taking all the medication I can
| responsibly take. Thankfully my home town is far less polluted,
| but even there my asthma is being triggered. I had a meltdown
| after having an attack _from opening my window for 30 minutes_.
| I can't imagine how terrible it must be for people without easy
| fallback options.
| johnzim wrote:
| I had a similar situation with London. Ironically I moved to
| California as the new annual fires started.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| California was much worse in the 70s/early 80s, where it
| wasn't forest fires but car exhaust and power plants
| causing dirty air. A lot of my older friends who grew up in
| the two big California metro areas have asthma. They
| cleaned up the air by the late 80s, but now forest fire
| season is a huge problem instead.
| DenisM wrote:
| I highly recommend N95 masks against forest fires from
| personal experience.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > If I had a vote whether to ban combustion engines from my
| city (cars, trucks, mopeds, leaf blowers - everything), with a
| relatively short transition period (say 5 years), I'd be in
| favor.
|
| Banning sales of internal combustion engine vehicles and
| products on a short timeline might be reasonable, but banning
| the operation of ICE vehicles is financially a very regressive
| policy.
|
| Buying a new electric car to get to work might not seem like a
| big deal to professionals in six-figure jobs, but it would be a
| crushing blow to someone making $15/hr who plans to drive their
| Honda Civic until the wheels fall off.
|
| Any actual policy decisions will need to focus on new car sales
| while also incentivizing people to upgrade to EVs. Maybe a
| cash-for-clunkers style program that takes ICE vehicles off the
| road and subsidizes the purchase of a new EV.
|
| Outright banning ICE transportation is a no-go unless we have a
| plan to alleviate the financial burden a sudden change puts on
| the lower class vehicle owners. It can be done, but it would be
| expensive.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| That is pretty American focused. In developing countries, low
| end wages aren't enough to buy cars anyways, and the rich
| people clogging the roads can afford EVs. Even in the rest of
| the developed world, cars are much more of a luxury item, and
| ICE vehicles and/or gas to power them are already ladened
| with lots of taxes (so buying an EV in Norway can be cheaper
| than buying an ICE).
| Permagate wrote:
| I'm not sure where you got the idea that the rich people
| clogged the road in developing countries, but we heavily
| depend on cars/motorcycles for our transportation. Poor
| people use them all the times (especially motorcycles). And
| people with low wages do take loans just to buy a cheap
| car/motorcycle, even way before buying a house since they
| provide immediate benefits with manageable monthly
| installments.
|
| EDIT: It makes me think why there is not much push for
| electric motorcycles. Whenever EV is mentioned, it's always
| been a car.
| [deleted]
| hkt wrote:
| > Outright banning ICE transportation is a no-go unless we
| have a plan to alleviate the financial burden a sudden change
| puts on the lower class vehicle owners. It can be done, but
| it would be expensive.
|
| Public transport, dedicated cycling infrastructure, and
| planning policies aiming for the "15 minute neighbourhood"
| are what you're looking for.
| seoaeu wrote:
| A full rollout of those ideas would take decades. I'd love
| to see all of them happen, but you can't just force someone
| to get rid of their ICE car and promise they'll have good
| public transit in the neighborhood come 2035.
| IncRnd wrote:
| Whenever I see these pictures, I am happy not to live in a
| city.
| [deleted]
| dundarious wrote:
| In a narrow sense I strongly agree, but more generally, I think
| this is impossible without reversing the neoliberal slide and
| massively increasing the welfare floor -- look at the Yellow
| Vests in France.
| screye wrote:
| Most hybrids are cheaper and overall more sustainable than
| fully electric cars. The vast majority of trips are.less.than
| 50 miles, so mining 300 miles.worth of more battery ends up
| causing a lot of pollution and a fresh disposal problem.
|
| Hybrids with 50 mile electric range and ICE after are much
| better options. Minimizes pollution at source and point of use.
| All while being monetarily affordable.
| devwastaken wrote:
| Your city would collapse, and the new jobless and homeless
| would torch it. Electric vehicles are far too expensive, and
| always will be. They're luxury cars for comparatively wealthy
| privileged people. Everyone else has a 20 year old gasoline car
| that still runs.
|
| This is all due to American cities passing the bill down and
| never building proper robust public transportation. Now you
| can't because thousands of business's are in the way, and the
| wealthy like being in their private little car.
| amluto wrote:
| There might be better bang for the buck by starting with the
| more highly polluting things. Other than CO2, things like leaf
| blowers are _vastly_ worse than cars. Also, excellent electric
| leaf blowers are widely available and appear (at least at my
| local Home Depot) to be _less_ expensive than their gas
| equivalents. I see no reason for a 5-year phaseout -- one year
| ought to be plenty.
| dathinab wrote:
| I just realized is it possible that Germany or at least
| Berlin has restrictions wrt. leaf blowers?
|
| I basically never see them used on private property, only by
| the BSR (~berlin cleansing department) and even then it's not
| something I see often??
|
| Time to google.
| dathinab wrote:
| Turns out they are so loud that:
|
| - You are not allowed to use them on Sunday or holidays.
|
| - On other days only between 9:00-13:00 and 15:00-17:00,
| with exceptions for official street cleaning, industrial
| only areas etc. (Which I guess explain why I normally not
| seeing them and if then when used by the BSR ;=) )
| [deleted]
| dundarious wrote:
| In my leafy European country it was extremely rare to see
| them, and if one did, it was electric.
| gruez wrote:
| >There might be better bang for the buck by starting with the
| more highly polluting things. Other than CO2, things like
| leaf blowers are _vastly_ worse than cars.
|
| You also need to multiply that effect by how many cars are
| active versus how many leaf blowers are active. On a per-
| household basis, you might be racking up 1.5 car-hours per
| day: (2 commuters x 30 minute average
| commute x 2 commutes per day x (5 working days in each 7 day
| week) + some arbitrary amount to account for weekend/non-
| commuting trips
|
| On the other hand, how often are you using a leaf blower?
| Maybe every time you cut the grass? Suppose you do it once a
| month and each time you blow for 30 minutes. That works out
| to 0.0167 hours per day, or 90 times less. And this is all
| assuming that everyone even bothers using a leaf blower.
| Maybe I live in a ghetto area, but I'd estimate that less
| than 1 in 10 houses uses a leafblower.
| occz wrote:
| They need not be mutually exclusive - we can do both, and we
| should.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| This might be a hard sell. ICE lawn equipment might be
| slightly heavier, but it also performs much better in my
| experience.
|
| Total run time and emitted particulate matters, do you
| actually have reason to believe the total output of lawn
| equipment is comparable to vehicle output?
| thomasqm wrote:
| From trustworthy wikipedia: "A 2011 study found that the
| amount of NMHC pollutants emitted by a leaf blower operated
| for 30 minutes is comparable to the amount emitted by a
| Ford F-150 pickup truck driving from Texas to Alaska. The
| two-stroke engines used in most leaf blowers operate by
| mixing gasoline with oil, and a third of this mixture is
| not burned, but is emitted as an aerosol exhaust. These
| pollutants have been linked to cancer, heart disease, and
| asthma," cited with https://www.edmunds.com/car-
| reviews/features/emissions-test-... and
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/leaf-blowers-are-loud-ugly-
| and-...
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| Ah, you're right. I remember seeing these ages ago, I
| wonder how I forgot. There's 4-stroke lawnmowers though,
| how bad are they?
| froggy wrote:
| I've had an electric lawn mower for about 10 years now and
| I can tell you that it has reduced my maintenance costs.
| For the ICE mower, I had to take it in every spring or
| every other spring to get it tuned up so it would start
| (from memory those bills were ~$75 each tune up).
|
| Same with the ICE snowblower that I bought back when I was
| young and dumb seeing all my neighbors with one, so I
| bought one - what a maintenance nightmare. I use snow
| shovels now which are way better for the environment and my
| health.
| Thlom wrote:
| My neighbor has one, but I think he often uses more time
| working on it than with it. I've considered one, but
| honestly, it's just my driveway and I'm (still)
| relatively young so I can shovel for now.
| maccard wrote:
| How long do you run your leaf blower for a year? In the UK, I
| don't know a single person with a gas powered leaf blower.
| krisoft wrote:
| I'm from europe and i have no idea what a leaf blower is. Our
| family didn't have one nor did any family I know of. My
| family always had a garden with trees, and it was often my
| chore as a kid to rake the leaves together. Is the leaf
| blower an alternative to that?
|
| Just asking because I want to understand how prevealent this
| form of polution is where you live.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| I'm also "from Europe", and I've seen leaf blowers used by
| both private individuals and local government for the last
| 15 years at least. Did I see it to the extent that it was
| "_vastly_ worse than cars" in terms of pollution? No, not
| even close. But it's been there.
| 0800LUCAS wrote:
| > I'm from europe and i have no idea what a leaf blower is
|
| They love the stuff in Ireland. I have no idea why people
| use it. It doesn't do much better of a job than a rake
| would. It's completely stupid
| elijaht wrote:
| > It doesn't do much better of a job than a rake would
|
| That's disingenuous. Raking the yard is a half-day chore
| for me, that's fairly physically strenuous. Using a
| leafblower takes like an hour and is really easy- you can
| stand and point. A leafblower is a non-zero QoL
| improvement if you have to deal with leaves
| hkt wrote:
| Real question: why rake the yard? The road I understand,
| but what's wrong with just letting the leaves decompose
| and enrich the soil?
| will4274 wrote:
| Leaves kill the grass. You want the grass to get light
| through the fall.
| TecoAndJix wrote:
| If you have a large property with tons of trees it is WAY
| more efficient than a rake
| version_five wrote:
| I've lived in a few different places, and mostly really
| only encountered leaf blowers either for some larger scale
| work like cleaning up leaves on a university campus, or for
| cleaning debris from parking lots.
|
| I've recently moved to an area with single family or
| attached homes on small lots, and inexplicably, everyone
| has a leaf blower. Most houses have a driveway and parking
| area, and about 10 square feet of lawn, but for some reason
| all the guys are out blowing leaves around... I'm supposing
| there must be pockets where culturally that's what people
| do, I certainly don't get it
| ant6n wrote:
| A leaf blower is how you move in the air when flying hooked
| up to a bunch of balloons:
|
| https://readingasawriterhome.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/ru
| s...
| namdnay wrote:
| Depends where you are in Europe. In France they're commonly
| used by town employees to blow stuff off roads. I wish
| they'd just use brooms
| luckylion wrote:
| Leaf blowers are _much_ more efficient though. They 're
| not just using them because they're loud and polluting,
| they're using them despite those attributes, because they
| easily quadruple a person's effectiveness with regards to
| moving large amounts of leaves on a flat surface.
| breuleux wrote:
| I'd be OK with just leaving the leaves on the ground, to
| be honest.
| evan_ wrote:
| They start to decompose and get slippery pretty quickly.
| It's a safety concern.
| namdnay wrote:
| If you're on gravel or sand I agree, leaf blowers are way
| better. But honestly on Asphalt they seem less effective
| than a big wide broom.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Yes and leaf blowers were not a common sight in America
| until the late 80s. How did we get through life before
| then?
| kiba wrote:
| Yes, it blows leaves. It's also quite obnoxiously loud, so
| there's noise pollution as well.
| megablast wrote:
| Pfft. Cars are way more polluting. For starters, they require
| removing huge amounts of land to pave over with roads.
| patagonia wrote:
| Electric cars still create pollution due to breaking and tire
| wear.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Exhaust isn't the only car pollution. There's also tire and
| brake wear. But I'm not sure which is worse at this point.
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| The difference in pollution between electric and ICE cars might
| be small, since most pollution is so-called "Non-exhaust
| emissions", like road surface wear, tyres and brakes:
|
| https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-...
| chithanh wrote:
| ICEs use friction brakes.
|
| Electric (and hybrid) vehicles normally use regenerative
| brakes, and friction brakes only as a backup system.
| robocat wrote:
| From link > [We] performed some initial tyre wear testing.
| Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new,
| correctly inflated tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8
| grams per kilometer of particles.
|
| That is 5.8kg per 1000km!!! An article that makes such
| ridiculous claims can be dismissed as trash. A small car tire
| weighs about 7kg[1], so absolutely no tyres or brakes left
| after less than 10000km.
|
| Also note the the vast majority of tyre particles are larger
| than 50um.
|
| By weight, I would guess less than 1% of wear by weight was <
| PM10 - see graph[2] from the first paper I found that
| measured tyre wear[3].
|
| Edit: I'm not saying tyre and brake particulate doesn't
| matter, but I am saying that link looks to be solidly in the
| stupid camp.
|
| [1] https://www.oponeo.co.uk/blog/how-much-does-a-tyre-weigh
|
| [2] https://ars.els-
| cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0301679X203019...
|
| [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03
| 016...
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| "Data from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory
| indicate that particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road
| surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass),
| respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road
| transport, and will become more dominant in the future."
|
| https://uk-
| air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1...
| namdnay wrote:
| Electric cars use their brakes far less. If you play around
| with the regenerative breaking you can handle 90% of
| situations without ever touching the brakes
|
| And your article is only talking about local particulate
| pollution, let's not forget the bigger issue of CO2
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > It would probably initially drive up prices of goods due to a
| shortage of electric delivery vehicles or the need to repack
| everything onto smaller local trucks outside the city, but I
| think it'd be worth it.
|
| There was a decade where we often ate plain white rice
| exclusively, as it was all we could afford. Even a small jump
| in prices would have increased the number of days where we
| couldn't afford any food at all.
|
| Many, many folks are in similar situations. I feel we should
| factor them into these equations.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Plus getting enough chargers, and upgrading old homes & grids
| to support that is expensive. I think we should spend a BIG
| chunk of a (hopefully passed) reconciliation bill on that
| instead of expanding highways.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| I feel like this is an argument in favor of broader social
| safety nets, not against pollution prevention.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| I think we should collectively focus on priorities.
|
| Replacing flights below a thousand kms with trains and limit
| road transport to a bare minimum and switch what's left to EVs
| (or hybrids) would have a big impact already, while also being
| economically sustainable.
|
| After all companies in the GDO are among the largest and most
| profitable in the World.
|
| Most cabs are already hybrid even here in Italy that
| historically resist to changes. The TCO is already lower than
| ICEs.
|
| An immediate ban on ICE vehicles would only affect the pockets
| of the low income segment of the population.
|
| The big chunk of pollution comes from vehicles running
| continuously, commuters use their cars to go to work and go
| back home.
| cal5k wrote:
| > I think we should collectively focus on priorities.
|
| Nobody operates that way though. Too much discussion of
| public policy seems to be oriented around "if only 'we' could
| just..." rather than "How can policy align selfish
| motivations with positive outcomes?"
|
| Example: despite the rhetoric you'll find on Twitter,
| practically everyone who got the COVID vaccine did so because
| they didn't want to get seriously ill from COVID themselves,
| not because they really care that much about people they
| don't know.
|
| Similarly, "we" will not be adopting more train travel any
| time soon unless there's a _very_ compelling reason for
| individuals to do so. Train travel in North America mostly
| sucks.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > despite the rhetoric you'll find on Twitter, practically
| everyone who got the COVID vaccine did so because they
| didn't want to get seriously ill from COVID
|
| slightly off topic, but I'll tell you that my main drive to
| get a vaccine was because if I got covid it would mean be
| stuck home in quarantine and avoid contacts.
|
| Of course I would have done it anyways because I believe in
| vaccines and all that, but incentives are an angle that
| should be explored by rule makers.
|
| GDO is a big polluter, let's tackle that issue before
| flooding the city centers with electric scooters that solve
| nothing and will be abandoned when they are not a novelty
| anymore and the cold season will knock on the door.
|
| p.s. I live in Europe, Italy, and trains are quite good for
| long distances, unless you live south of Naples, and I've
| stopped flying from Rone to Milan 10 years ago.
| Unfortunately high speed trains are not exactly cheap, but
| not more expensive than flying.
| megablast wrote:
| Electric cars still create large amounts of pollution. The
| number one cause of micro plastics near waterways is from car
| tyres. Then manufacturing and mining pollution.
|
| It's a awful idea to replace all cars with electric cars.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| It would also financially cripple any poor person that relies
| on a car to get to work. And public transportation won't be
| viable in the US until cities finally wrap their head around
| the reality that you need basic security checkpoints at
| entrances to discourage riff raff from getting in (like in
| China).
|
| If you've ever ridden BART, you know what I mean.
| thefounder wrote:
| >> until cities finally wrap their head around the reality
| that you need basic security checkpoints at entrances
|
| Sounds like you live in a "war zone". I don't know any place
| in Europe with that kind of security.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yeah it's bad enough to deal with all that when flying. If
| this would come to the metro I'd never use it again. All we
| really have in terms of crime is pickpockets. Adding
| security will just make them operate more on the streets.
|
| We don't have a totalitarian state here like China. That's
| a good thing.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| I'm not talking about the millimeter wave scanners TSA
| has where they make you take off your shoes and take out
| all your stuff. We're talking 1-2 officers who quickly
| glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector you
| walk through, similar to the security at a football game.
| It's more intended as security theatre by the presence of
| officers to discourage petty crime than to catch
| terrorists.
|
| Forcing criminals to move to the streets makes public
| transportation more appealing, I think that's obvious
| enough.
| thefounder wrote:
| >> glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector
|
| Why would you like transportation staff to treat you like
| a criminal?
|
| >> Forcing criminals to move to the streets
|
| Maybe a better approach would be to have less criminals
| rather than move them around?
| obedm wrote:
| Was going to comment the same. What kind of city would need
| that?
|
| I'm always amazed at how people think their little part of
| the world is an accurate representation of reality.
| Nbox9 wrote:
| Imagine being exposed to some of the most vulnerable and
| desperate people in The United States and thinking "We should
| keep them out" instead of "We should help them."
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| It'd be quite nice to help them. The SF budget certainly
| tries, though $50,000 for a tent is a little on the steep
| side.
|
| "Free rein to abuse the subway system and its riders" is
| however a policy with very limited utility when it comes to
| helping people, and the costs are very high. Transit
| systems should keep them out insofar as they are not
| engaging in transit.
| krisoft wrote:
| These are not incompatible thoughts though are they? One
| can think that we should help the homeless while also think
| that the public transport is not usable for their own usage
| while it also acts as a homeless shelter.
|
| I'm not living in a city where this is a problem, so maybe
| my viewpoint is naive here. I want my tax to be spent on
| helping the homeless, even if that means that I have to pay
| more, and I also don't want to sit next to someone on the
| bus who had no opportunity to wash in the last weeks. I
| don't feel that these thoughts are in conflict.
| w4 wrote:
| > _And public transportation won 't be viable in the US until
| cities finally wrap their head around the reality that you
| need basic security checkpoints at entrances to discourage
| riff raff from getting in (like in China)._
|
| It seems like you're in SF. The bad experiences you have had
| there do not generalize to all other cities. I've lived in
| several US and foreign cities that have safe public transit
| without security checkpoints. Omnipresent security forces
| shouldn't be necessary if other city and state services are
| functional.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| US cities I've been to:
|
| East Coast city 1: no light rail, buses come every 45min
|
| East Coast city 2: no light rail, buses come every
| 30-45min, but at least they were free
|
| West Coast city 1: no light rail, buses come every 45min
| and cost $$$ if you want to take an express route
|
| SF Bay Area: BART is a disaster, CalTrain only works well
| during peak hours and only if you live in the Peninsula. I
| literally watched a group of 2 teenagers hop the fare
| gates, get on, then get off the station before the fare
| checkers got on. Every station smells like piss and most of
| the ones in SF proper have shit in them too. BART East Bay
| -> Fremont/SJ is easily a 2 hour ride because the train
| moves at sub-30mph in residential areas.
|
| Chicago: Trains still move pretty slowly but don't have
| piss and shit all over them at least. From what I can tell,
| buses are also not viable for reasonable transportation.
| Boston: Decent trains in most of the downtown/Cambridge
| area, but suburbs were pretty much a non-starter.
|
| In comparison:
|
| Shanghai/Beijing: security checkpoints at subway entrances,
| getting on/off trains is orderly and trains are clean.
| Trains run fast because authorities don't care about making
| too much noise, so you aren't better off driving because
| the train was running at 25mph. Trains come every 5mins or
| more often. You can get across the city in under an hour.
|
| For the US cities that had light rail, the issues were
| clearly not due to lack of funding but due to NIMBYism
| limiting speeds and a refusal to enforce any level of
| security (in the case of SF). I bet you can get BART to
| come every 5 mins instead of every 20mins with the same
| number of trains if you 4x'd the speed to 80-100 mph. BART
| already does over that speed in long stretches like the Bay
| tunnel or the long stretches in Fremont so it's not like
| this requires any sort of re-engineering.
| w4 wrote:
| How do any of these complaints support the need for
| "security checkpoints"? A city lacking a subway system
| altogether does not support your statement that transit
| systems need security checkpoints to keep out the "riff
| raff." The two things aren't even related to each other.
| Furthermore there are many clean and efficient systems in
| Europe that don't even have _turnstiles_ , let alone
| security checkpoints.
|
| Aside from your complaints about the BART, everything
| you've catalogued here either reflects a lack of
| investment, or the old age of US subway systems as
| compared to the newer transit systems in Asia. Chicago
| and Boston's subway systems are among the very oldest
| subway systems in the world. They both began operation in
| the 1890s. Shanghai's subway system opened in the 1990s.
| It's also convenient that NYC, home to one of the world's
| very largest subway systems, didn't make your list, but
| Shanghai and Beijing did. Finally, it's not necessarily a
| good thing that authorities in China "don't care about
| making too much noise." NIMBYism may be a problem, but so
| is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of
| its people.
|
| The US needs more investment in public transit. There's
| no arguing that. But your suggestion that "security
| checkpoints" are necessary to have good transit just
| isn't true.
|
| EDIT: The Boston suburbs are served by an extensive rail
| system. You may have missed it because it runs as a
| separate line from the main subway. Here's a map: https:/
| /cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/2020-02-com...
| namdnay wrote:
| > I literally watched a group of 2 teenagers hop the fare
| gates, get on, then get off the station before the fare
| checkers got on
|
| Wow... what a dystopia!
|
| More seriously, is this really a huge issue? You can see
| that all day long in Paris, it doesn't stop the transport
| system from being OK
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Teens are relevant here mostly as a test of the system's
| ability to exclude. A system excluding people sounds a
| little mean, but it is important if you want to have a
| transit system that is actually fit for transit.
|
| When there's a homeless man shooting up with some drugs
| on the narrow platform at Bleecker St while a crowd of
| people try to get off the train and get out of there
| without tripping or provoking a confrontation, and that's
| "normal" for the city subway, the people may decide the
| system is no longer fit for transit. Fortunately that's
| still "slightly extraordinary" for NYC and not quite
| "normal" (I only saw him once) but it's all very
| unfortunate.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| Replace 2 teenagers with "homeless guy that shit himself"
| or "criminals" [1] and you have a different story. If you
| have proper security this sort of class of behavior is
| entirely prevented.
|
| [1]: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-
| robbery-5...
| hkt wrote:
| Just a thought, but maybe a social safety net would be
| more effective in preventing the homeless from getting
| into the kind of state where they do that? Rather than
| more security. Just thinking laterally about the problem
| here..
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > Shanghai/Beijing: security checkpoints at subway
| entrances, getting on/off trains is orderly and trains
| are clean.
|
| But the lines to get on can be a PITA. Eg. waiting in
| line for 45 minutes to get on the subway in Beijing at
| Liangmaqiao is a horrible experience. I'll take the piss
| smell in the USA to that. Actually, the security check
| waits in Beijing subway was the main reason I
| transitioned quickly to taking a taxi to and from work.
| (see https://www.thatsmags.com/beijing/post/20938/photos-
| increase..., not my personal experience, but I've
| experienced similar in the interchange at Dongzhimen).
| ben_w wrote:
| I think security checkpoints are the wrong solution to the
| wrong problem.
|
| Yes, American public transport and city design does indeed
| suck -- I am not an American, but I have visited for a total
| of 4 months, used public transport in NYC, Boston, Bay Area,
| and the SanFran-Davis-Sacremento line -- but here in Berlin
| there aren't even ticket barriers, and nothing particularly
| exciting happens here even from the homeless person[0] who
| begged on my pre-COVID commute. Some fairly fancy busking
| from time to time, but that's the peak of excitement.
|
| [0] I assume. Just one person, recognised their practiced
| speech. Might have been selling German equivalent to the Big
| Issue for all I know, as they didn't really get in the way of
| anyone.
| luckylion wrote:
| Berlin's public transport is pretty dirty though. If I had
| to live in Berlin, I'd get a car, even if it takes more
| time.
|
| I realize everyone has a different threshold for what they
| consider dirty, and people voluntarily living in Berlin
| seem to have a much higher threshold than me, but yeah, I'd
| prefer some checks in exchange for clean & undamaged public
| transport.
| occz wrote:
| These problems do not exist for much of the rest of the
| worlds public transportation systems.
|
| The problem that San Francisco is facing, and that you should
| attempt to solve instead of spending energy on excluding
| already poor people from public transportation, is
| homelessness.
| wffurr wrote:
| BART is uniquely bad in that respect. Significantly worse
| than other North American cities. Chalk it up to Bay Area
| dysfunction and inequality.
|
| Used EVs will be relatively affordable soon and the total
| cost of ownership is significantly lower.
| refulgentis wrote:
| > Used EVs will be relatively affordable soon
|
| We're very far away from crossing under 30K, much less 10K
| cyberbanjo wrote:
| Used Chevy volt for 5-15k, it seems you can get a sub 10k
| electric car already?
| sokoloff wrote:
| A Volt is a _hybrid_ , not a pure electric. (The Bolt is
| Chevy's BEV.)
| creato wrote:
| So what? If it drives a few 10s of miles without burning
| gas, if everyone used them, that would eliminate probably
| 90%+ of emission pollution in cities.
|
| I feel that the obsession with pure electric has crippled
| the fight against pollution and CO2 emissions. Every car
| with 20 miles of battery range is probably a lot more
| impactful in the fight against climate change than 10% of
| cars with 200 miles of battery range, and has fewer major
| tradeoffs (cheaper, limited range/recharging is not an
| issue, much less need to build an entirely new charging
| infrastructure).
| sokoloff wrote:
| Upthread context is someone positing/supporting a total
| ban of all ICE in their city and someone arguing that's
| disproportionately harmful to the poor because pure EVs
| are more expensive. In that context, it matters quite a
| bit that the Volt has an ICE, even though I overall agree
| with you on the Volt being environmentally beneficial.
| gregable wrote:
| It's in a weird space. It's kinda a pure electric.
| ben_w wrote:
| Even a hybrid is probably sufficient in this context.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Upthread context: "If I had a vote whether to ban
| combustion engines from my city (cars, trucks, mopeds,
| leaf blowers - everything), with a relatively short
| transition period (say 5 years), I'd be in favor."
|
| In that context, the Volt (and other hybrids, plug-in or
| not) would either be banned or be required to disable
| their ICE engines in the city.
|
| * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504461
| sokoloff wrote:
| My LEAF cost a little over $30K _brand new_ (before $10K
| in total rebates).
|
| Used LEAFs (and Smart ED/EQs) are readily available in
| the $5K to $10K range.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| BART existing at all puts it ahead of the majority of
| cities in the US (for reference, per capita San Fansisco
| has the second most trips on public transit of any city in
| the US). New York is the only US city that has comparable
| public transit to international contemporaries.
|
| Long decades of poor planing in the US (and in general the
| low population density) make it a place ill-suited to
| public transportation. EVs affordable enough for the poor
| will definitely be required here, so here's hoping you're
| right and we'll reach that point soon.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Perhaps it puts them ahead, but they are coasting. BART
| and Muni ridership has for years been stagnant or
| declining, while the budgets explode and system speed and
| on-time performance fall apart.
|
| Maybe Caltrain did marginally better? They added express
| services not that long ago.
| occz wrote:
| >(and in general the low population density)
|
| The low population density is arguably caused by the bad
| planning.
|
| >make it a place ill-suited to public transportation.
|
| I'm quite convinced that you will not be able to drive
| yourselves out of the issue you have in the U.S - you'll
| need to retrofit what you have to make it amenable to
| proper public transportation. EVs help a bit, but only
| really with the carbon dioxide-issue - everything else
| bad about cars is still bad with EVs.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| >EVs affordable enough for the poor will definitely be
| required here
|
| Here in SW Ontario there are countless people riding
| those electric scooters or ebikes in the summertime. I've
| even seen old barflies hop on after drinking a pitcher
| and head on to the next spot. I'm sure the Bay Area has
| more clement weather year-round than here.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| I commuted to/from a train on an electric scooter. Not
| only are they just not viable for any trips longer than
| 3-4 miles, you can't go up any sort of incline either.
| Mine was "overclocked" to enable up to 500w of power and
| I'm 180lbs, but it wouldn't be able to climb even a 10
| degree incline at over walking speed. And at least the
| consumer ones you can find on Amazon are not robust
| enough to withstand even 6 months of daily use before the
| tire wears out, battery terminals corrode, and screws
| start falling out.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I've used a normal bike and an e-bike and didn't have
| such issues.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| $2k e-bikes are probably more robust than the $600
| scooter I was riding and would definitely be my choice
| next time around. For anyone interested in e-scootering
| though, avoid the Segway ES series like hell and make
| sure you do your research.
| xnx wrote:
| Also a huge win for noise pollution.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| I am not sure it affects people as directly as you claim, at
| least not everywhere. I can see that argument in Los Angeles or
| Mumbai, but not in Seattle or Portland, where the air is fine
| and there's no "stink" even with people mostly using combustion
| engines.
| nikkwong wrote:
| Politely disagree. I ride a bicycle as a means of
| transportation around Seattle and the exhaust from vehicles
| is so unpleasant that it makes me consider either not going
| out, or also driving a vehicle instead to get around.
|
| Further, it's just unpleasant to be trying to enjoy a walk
| around the city; or being anywhere near a road and then
| having the jarring experience of being surrounded by a plume
| of fumes. They stink & they're terribly unhealthy to inhale.
| And even when you're not noticing them acutely, they're
| probably wading into your lungs at some degree as long as
| you're within X distance from a road. I think cities would be
| much more pleasant without them.
| Havoc wrote:
| Just replaced my air filter. Felt pretty bad about it...the
| cartridge is a mix of plastic and god knows what that seems
| unnecessarily robust and not eco friendly. Like the appliance
| itself in build quality. Normally I'd be impressed...but filters
| that destroy the environment because we destroyed the
| environments seem uhm not ideal
| cannabis_sam wrote:
| What? In which countries are pollution and climate destruction
| taken seriously?
|
| We live in a world that will protect car and gas usage, no matter
| what... all of our cities are shaped around cars and roads, young
| people are excluded from homeownership, but old assholes have
| access to luxurious parking spaces..
|
| But yeah, apparently electric scooters are the worst hate crime
| since hitler.
| josh_today wrote:
| There's a zero percent chance this can be validated but a 100%
| chance it will be used to increase government control.
|
| What's being done to address the 100 corporations that cause 70%
| of the world's emissions?
|
| Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/just-100-firms-
| attributable-...
| hh3k0 wrote:
| > What's being done to address the 100 corporations that cause
| 70% of the world's emissions?
|
| I see that number floating around a lot, it's oversimplified
| and lacking context.
|
| <<71% of those emissions originated from 100 fossil fuel
| producers. This includes the emissions from producing fossil
| fuels (like oil, coal and gas), and the _subsequent use of the
| fossil fuels they sell to other companies_.>>
|
| https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo...
|
| Consider what <<subsequent use of the fossil fuels they sell to
| other companies>> entails. We're talking energy, transport,
| manufacturing, etc.
| lucb1e wrote:
| If those were being addressed, you wouldn't have fossil fuel to
| put in your car, gas power plant, or gas heater next month.
| Never mind flying anywhere.
| OneEyedRobot wrote:
| It might as well be 1000 corporations. The problem remains a
| version of the village commons.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| Not really. People consume what is produced. You can see this
| bias in news and print media and its effect on propaganda,
| but it really applies to all items produced. It's a popular
| retort to "just don't buy Apple" in the tech lockdown debates
| that crop up.
| namdnay wrote:
| And what is being produced in this case is petrol (look at
| the list of 100 top polluting companies).
|
| So let's tax petrol, that way we reduce consumption
| throwaway52170 wrote:
| They don't exist in a vacuum, polluting for its own sake
| noja wrote:
| Government control of what exactly? Lowering emissions?
| Splognosticus wrote:
| Egh, right? It's kind of annoying how whenever anyone
| suggests trying anything to improve society someone comes out
| of the woodwork to cry about government overreach.
|
| Never an argument about the merits of the proposal, just some
| trite hand-wringing that somewhere somehow someone _might_ be
| able to use it to their political advantage. Never even an
| explanation of why this one thing would be so dangerous when
| governments already by nature have vast authority to control
| pretty much anything they want.
|
| Worst of all you can't reason against it, since it's not a
| position of reason. Regardless of what point you make they'll
| just dig in and ignore them. :(
| dqpb wrote:
| This seems like a poor model of population dynamics. Isn't it
| possible that earlier deaths in the elderly population might act
| as an economic stimulus that increases birth rate in the younger
| population? (So the net change in life years would not be 17bn).
|
| Edit: I assume the downvotes are suggesting my logic is wrong. It
| would be helpful to hear why.
| dm319 wrote:
| > It would be helpful to hear why.
|
| Granny dying does not make me broody.
| dqpb wrote:
| So you're arguing the decrease in average lifespan effects
| fecundity of the younger population. That might be true, but
| I wouldn't bet on it.
| MattRix wrote:
| Even if that were true, it wouldn't be a good thing.
| dqpb wrote:
| I didn't say it would be a good thing. I'm just questioning
| the math.
| BeautifulWorld wrote:
| Recent events confirm that the only thing which has been reduced
| is the WHO's standards.
| alex_young wrote:
| So, 17B / 8B world population = 2 years. Nothing to sneeze at,
| but much more understandable in per person terms.
| Cyril_HN wrote:
| Two years unevenly distributed and with decreasing quality of
| life long before your time is up.
| a1371 wrote:
| I'm looking for other studies considering this idea of "life
| years". Generally around where people's time is going, what is
| wasting it, or taking it away. Does anyone have any suggestions?
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Is this really that complicated? We can have more people living
| lives with limited freedoms and limited lifestyle quality, or
| more people with greater freedoms but greater
| health/climate/whatever impacts, or we can have fewer people.
| Fossil fuels aren't the primary problem or even the sole problem.
| It's that we have enough people living rich lives to create
| problems of scale whether from fossil fuels or mining or
| whatever.
| dundarious wrote:
| Should the title not be "Fossil Fuel Capitalism Is Cutting Our
| Lives Short"?
| [deleted]
| climate_death wrote:
| You don't understand do you, this is the end goal. The thing we
| are all cheering on.
| john_w_t_b wrote:
| Air pollution is reduced by misty light rain. The process is
| called wet deposition. Swarms of electric drones could mist
| cities with water every morning to reduce air pollution. The
| technology should be feasible and economically justified.
|
| Here's a link about wet deposition.
|
| https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/focus-areas/environmen...
|
| Here's a recent example of misty rain at work in the Bay Area.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/pj12nx/a_labo...
| dundarious wrote:
| Isn't water vapor a significant GHG? Wouldn't daily misting of
| cities augment the greenhouse effect significantly?
| woodruffw wrote:
| This is probably great for the humans involved, but it occurs
| to me that using misting to lower air pollutant levels while
| not actually _reducing_ air pollution just means that we 're
| dumping those pollutants into the watershed instead.
| nbzso wrote:
| Please, I would love to convert my Jag to electricity. This is
| the future. But reality is that aside from tech sector, people
| cannot afford buying a new electric car. End countries from EU
| with high standard of living are not the example. "Banning"
| cannot solve the problem. Transportation is affecting prices of
| goods. There is no magic bullet. You cannot shut down economy
| like that. I still don't understand why there is not global
| initiative for synthetic fuel. Only Porsche and Siemens are
| thinking clearly. We have a proven way to transit to electric
| cars and build adequate architecture.
| justinator wrote:
| I think the overlap of those who can afford a Jaguar and those
| who can afford an electric car is pretty great.
|
| But I also think the overlap of those who can afford a Jaguar
| and absolutely don't give a shit about the poor, or the
| environment or anything else is also great.
|
| And the latter is the problem.
| nbzso wrote:
| My Jag is second hand classic. I use it mainly in the summer
| for short trips. My daily is hybrid. But this is not the
| point. The point is that we have to find a way to optimize
| ideas and legislation towards reality, not towards some dream
| world. Legislation or not, to have electrical infrastructure
| and accessibility in place, combined with synthetic fuel will
| solve the problem.
| climate_death wrote:
| Covid reduced life by over 17Tn years.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-12 23:00 UTC)