Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#41

Post by dmix »

mushufasa wrote: post #20

This is also called the Environmental Kuznets Curve (1991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Ku... . There's a lot of criticism in the literature. The statistics rarely live up to the theory at face value. ( https://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/Stern_KuznetsCurv... ). And often, new pollutants emerge in rich countries as others decline. For example, in the USA, water pollutants targeted…

> The researchers found intersex smallmouth bass everywhere they looked. About 85 percent of the males collected in the refuges were intersex. At least some males at every site had female egg cells. It was less prevalent in largemouth bass—about 27 percent.

Wow that's the vast majority, sounds like it could be a serious issue. What's interesting is how it's been found near cities and Agriculture but also in remote areas.

I'm curious how much of a role the waste treatment centers have played which was noted as a potential source.

Since water can travel long distances via rivers and rain its going to be hard to pinpoint who or what is to blame. Hopefully they keep digging into that question.

I also now understand what Alex Jones meant by "gay fish" in one of his popular rants he was mocked for.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#42

Post by jschwartzi »

vinay427 wrote: post #38
marmaduke wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I think of when I see hopefuls talking about climate change, among other topics. The guy who doesn't have enough money for rent? He's not buying the expensive free range eggs. If I were in a developing country, I would be worried that climate accords become a other way for those on top to stay there.

> The guy who doesn't have enough money for rent? He's not buying the expensive free range eggs. I suppose you were just providing a random example, but if you're curious the production of free-range eggs almost certainly pollutes more carbon than caged eggs [1] while being less ethically sound (assuming that was the consideration for cage-free), environmentally responsible, and typically more expensive than plant al…

That's okay, because I use about 50% fewer eggs when I buy free range. They're more than twice as expensive. So while the per-egg carbon cost is 20% higher my total carbon usage for eggs will have dropped significantly as a result of switching.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#43

Post by jschwartzi »

bro45 wrote: post #37
drdrey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not true. The US emits 16 tons of CO2 per capita. For many African countries, that number is 1-2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The greatest polluter is everybody living in large single family homes full of things manufactured on other continents, with AC, multiple cars, eating red meat every day.

The greatest polluter is the economy where the only profitable business model is planned depreciation to make people buy new stuff. Nobody makes durable razors because it's a financial suicide. Nobody makes reliable cars, laptops, toothbrushes. People don't have a choice but to keep replacing things that break. Manufacturing these things wastes oil, coal and pollutes the environment. The businesses don't care because…

I actually disagree that we'd no longer perform R&D or build new things. Rather, there would be a significant increase in retrofits to existing equipment. For example even cars from 30 years ago used standard DIN slots with DIN rails to mount their stereo equipment. You could easily build something to replace that equipment and retrofit in-dash GPS. And replacing the HVAC and retrofitting AC onto old engines is also possible by modifying the serpentine belt routing and cutting holes in the firewall.

Almost certainly what would happen is manufacturers would build more robust things and there would be more "ships of theseus" where you're running a 30-year old cabinet but with modern materials and components. People would generally have to be more technical and develop more one-off solutions.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#44

Post by addicted »

marmaduke wrote: post #21
MrSlovenia wrote: post #3

Makes sense: when a country has an industrial revolution it just wants to grow fast. Then when the extreme growth part passes it starts to stabilize: this is when the country & the people start doing well enough so that they can look at other issues (environmental impact) without having to sacrifice their livelihoods. The human will always prioritize his own and his families livelihood. Only once that is stable can o…

This is exactly what I think of when I see hopefuls talking about climate change, among other topics. The guy who doesn't have enough money for rent? He's not buying the expensive free range eggs. If I were in a developing country, I would be worried that climate accords become a other way for those on top to stay there.

Except that's a false dichotomy. The hypothetical guy you're talking about is almost certainly the one whose family is gonna be negatively affected the most by climate change.

And this isn't in some hypothetical future. It's already happening.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#45

Post by mushufasa »

dmix wrote: post #41
mushufasa wrote: post #20

This is also called the Environmental Kuznets Curve (1991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Ku... . There's a lot of criticism in the literature. The statistics rarely live up to the theory at face value. ( https://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/Stern_KuznetsCurv... ). And often, new pollutants emerge in rich countries as others decline. For example, in the USA, water pollutants targeted…

> The researchers found intersex smallmouth bass everywhere they looked. About 85 percent of the males collected in the refuges were intersex. At least some males at every site had female egg cells. It was less prevalent in largemouth bass—about 27 percent. Wow that's the vast majority, sounds like it could be a serious issue. What's interesting is how it's been found near cities and Agriculture but also in remote ar…

> What's interesting is how it's been found near cities and Agriculture but also in remote areas. I'm curious how much of a role the waste treatment centers have played which was noted as a potential source.

There are generally two main sources. 1. agricultural runoff related to fertilizers. 2. Urban sewage, because birth control products get flushed down toilets and the wastewater treatment plants don't even try to filter for hormones (it's not part of the Clean Water Act). And even if they tried, the methods to do so are nascent (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/19/4153363...).

> I also now understand what Alex Jones meant by "gay fish" in one of his popular rants he was mocked for.

Yes, he got unfair criticism for calling attention to this -- it is actually a huge environmental problem that needs more public awareness. The ecological impacts are huge, and yes because the water treatment plants don't filter, you might be drinking similar concentrations through tap water. (edit: to be clear, the concentrations that harm fish are nowhere near enough to cause the same level of harm in humans, so no you will not turn gay from drinking tap water)

He's still a nutcase con man though, IMO. Mixing in a few grains of truth makes the poisonous ideas go down smoother.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#46

Post by dmix »

mushufasa wrote: post #45
dmix wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The researchers found intersex smallmouth bass everywhere they looked. About 85 percent of the males collected in the refuges were intersex. At least some males at every site had female egg cells. It was less prevalent in largemouth bass—about 27 percent. Wow that's the vast majority, sounds like it could be a serious issue. What's interesting is how it's been found near cities and Agriculture but also in remote ar…

> What's interesting is how it's been found near cities and Agriculture but also in remote areas. I'm curious how much of a role the waste treatment centers have played which was noted as a potential source. There are generally two main sources. 1. agricultural runoff related to fertilizers. 2. Urban sewage, because birth control products get flushed down toilets and the wastewater treatment plants don't even try to…

All charlatans mix truth with falsehoods.

Alex Jones knows exactly what he's doing with his character. Anyway yeah the lack of treatment options sounds like a big roadblock.

It seems people can find any fertilizer that doesn't harm the environment somehow either, whatever is being used has already had to jump through a hundred hoops first :/

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#47

Post by gumby »

gravelc wrote: post #28
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #7

It brings this up in the article, but I have a very difficult time believing this isn't just because rich countries have shifted manufacturing and mining to poor countries. Look at recycling. We all thought we were so environmentally aware by recycling, but turns out so much "recycling" was just "ship to poor countries to deal with the fallout".

This practice has just been outlawed in Australia, which is great news. I’d willingly pay more for recycling to be done here.

I believe the post your were responding too just used recycling as an example.

A different example: Australia could have a tech industry that didn't pollute (assuming the power weren't coming from brown coal :-( ). But all the hardware designed in AUS could be built in a highly polluting way in China. That would be essentially exporting the pollution.

I don't know the fix, just pointing out the topic at hand. Australia's record on pollution is horrific, especially when you consider how little of our continent is actually habitable.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#48

Post by robocat »

bro45 wrote: post #37
drdrey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not true. The US emits 16 tons of CO2 per capita. For many African countries, that number is 1-2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The greatest polluter is everybody living in large single family homes full of things manufactured on other continents, with AC, multiple cars, eating red meat every day.

The greatest polluter is the economy where the only profitable business model is planned depreciation to make people buy new stuff. Nobody makes durable razors because it's a financial suicide. Nobody makes reliable cars, laptops, toothbrushes. People don't have a choice but to keep replacing things that break. Manufacturing these things wastes oil, coal and pollutes the environment. The businesses don't care because…

That's nonsense: you have to look at the whole economy as an ecology of different waste streams.

The $X money you saved on non-disposable goods would instead be $Y spent on consumable goods (e.g. some wine or steak - both near 100% "pollution") or $Z spend on services (e.g. travel - near 100% pollution too) or other permanent goods $U (an expensive jacket that could last 300 years except it got thrown out because it looks ugly and smells of Uncle Jack).

If you want to save the world, you need to directly do something that saves it e.g. protect some native forest, or buy some farm land and let it revert to wilderness.

Anything else where you are participating in the economy is virtually guaranteed to have a high degree of waste (buy some eco-friendly meat, but 50% is retail markup, and the the hippy producer uses the money on a "wasteful" overseas holiday).

Very few people calculate the total ecological footprint of their actions: e.g. buying an electric car can easily be far worse for the planet (depending on cost, location, usage, and other factors).

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#49

Post by coldtea »

chewz wrote: post #23
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #7

It brings this up in the article, but I have a very difficult time believing this isn't just because rich countries have shifted manufacturing and mining to poor countries. Look at recycling. We all thought we were so environmentally aware by recycling, but turns out so much "recycling" was just "ship to poor countries to deal with the fallout".

Where do you draw the line? How about Thailand or Malaysia (as an example)? They are both fairly developed and hoping to avoid middle income trap and become developed countries within few years. In both countries disregard for enviroment and citizens health is just sad. Toxic haze, toxic water, pollution, trash. When is the moment that a country decides that it is rich enough and it is time to clean its act? https://…

>Where do you draw the line?

You don't. You account for those externalities all the way (until they become small enough so that further breakdown does not matter).

>When is the moment that a country decides that it is rich enough and it is time to clean its act?

If by cleaning you mean "moving it somewhere else" then it doesn't matter.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#50

Post by azernik »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #7

It brings this up in the article, but I have a very difficult time believing this isn't just because rich countries have shifted manufacturing and mining to poor countries. Look at recycling. We all thought we were so environmentally aware by recycling, but turns out so much "recycling" was just "ship to poor countries to deal with the fallout".

Interestingly, there's currently a big debate in the UK about including imported goods in its carbon statistics and for its zero-carbon goals.
Post reply on HN