Live data from Hacker News

Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

attheu.utah.edu

11–20 of 352 posts

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#11
post #6

Hopefully next we can help fix mercury in fish, the number one contributor right now is burning coal. Seems like it would be a easy decision.

Burning coal is a huge and easy win. Artisinal and small scale gold mining should be high on the list too, even though it's a much harder problem:

https://www.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/what-we-do/art...

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#14
I remember going to LA in the late 80's and my eyes watering (I also remember the pants-less man on the side of the strode but that is a different story). Environmental regulations are a win. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that doesn't believe something until it happens to them directly. That makes it a challenge to maintain environmental, or any regulations for that matter, over generations. It isn't practical, but it would be interesting to create 'pollution cities' where the regulations were loose so long as the entire company drew its workforce (including management) from the local population (like within a mile) and a significant portion of their drinking water and foods must also be sourced locally. Go ahead, pollute your own drinking water. I bet cities like this would be cleaner than ones with stricter regulations.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#15
post #6

Hopefully next we can help fix mercury in fish, the number one contributor right now is burning coal. Seems like it would be a easy decision.

Burning coal is a huge and easy win. Artisinal and small scale gold mining should be high on the list too, even though it's a much harder problem: https://www.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/what-we-do/art...

You do mean banning rather than burning, right?

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#16
post #6

Hopefully next we can help fix mercury in fish, the number one contributor right now is burning coal. Seems like it would be a easy decision.

Coal is mostly sticking around in the US because of federal overreach to keep unprofitable and ancient coal generators going long after anybody wants to pay for the high maintenance. Last week, a Colorado utility was "respectfully" asking to be able to close a plant: > TTri-State Generation and partner Platte River Power Authority had a “respectful” but emphatic response late Thursday to the Trump administration orde…

Thank you for such a thoughtful comment. There's politics that gets flagged on this site, and there's politics that makes me think about things with more clarity. Yours is obviously the latter.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#17
post #6

Hopefully next we can help fix mercury in fish, the number one contributor right now is burning coal. Seems like it would be a easy decision.

Burning coal is a huge and easy win. Artisinal and small scale gold mining should be high on the list too, even though it's a much harder problem: https://www.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/what-we-do/art...

I'm skeptical that it's easier. On the numbers alone, artisanal and small scale gold mining (apparently) accounts for 15-20% of global gold production. But coal accounts for 35% of total electricity generation.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#18

I remember going to LA in the late 80's and my eyes watering (I also remember the pants-less man on the side of the strode but that is a different story). Environmental regulations are a win. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that doesn't believe something until it happens to them directly. That makes it a challenge to maintain environmental, or any regulations for that matter, over generations…

> Environmental regulations are a win. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that doesn't believe something ...

You aren't wrong, but let's be honest that a lot of that is manufacturing just moved to China and moved the pollution. Specific to lead in gas, yes it's great we no longer do this.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#19
post #18

I remember going to LA in the late 80's and my eyes watering (I also remember the pants-less man on the side of the strode but that is a different story). Environmental regulations are a win. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that doesn't believe something until it happens to them directly. That makes it a challenge to maintain environmental, or any regulations for that matter, over generations…

> Environmental regulations are a win. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that doesn't believe something ... You aren't wrong, but let's be honest that a lot of that is manufacturing just moved to China and moved the pollution. Specific to lead in gas, yes it's great we no longer do this.

Manufacturing output hit an all time high in the US in 2024.

There's less manufacturing jobs and it's less of the total economy as other sectors grew but it would presumably need to be genuinely cleaner in order to offset that growth if industrial pollution just remained flat.

The switch from coal to gas would be a major cleanup for any process that uses electricity, for example.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#20
post #6

Hopefully next we can help fix mercury in fish, the number one contributor right now is burning coal. Seems like it would be a easy decision.

Not with Captain Planet tier cartoon villains in power.

you mean like the german environmentalists who singlehandedly kicked up german atmospheric mercury emissions?
Post reply on HN