The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones” • Hacker News Board

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#11

Post by howmayiannoyyou » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

Before the emissions control feeding frenzy begins, let's try to remember that further regulation without industry input contributes to further inflation & moves more polluting production overseas where we have no control over its impact on the world.

Yes, we should aim for zero emissions. Yes, the health impacts carry their own costs not to mention the human tragedy. However, good public policy is about rewarding good behavior (eg. tax credits) and punishing bad behavior (eg. tax, enforcement, penalties). Everyone loves to talk about the latter, while the former is ignored.

We really need to be long-term smart about how we craft environmental policy in America, and particularly so given other countries unwillingness to manage pollution in an effective or transparent manner.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#12

Post by ajsnigrutin » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #6

kybishop wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I'm aware CA puts many warning stickers on various products... but isn't it possible that profit-seeking corporations are, in fact, using cancer-causing materials simply because they're cheaper?

People don't seem to change their behaviour due to those warnings. Nobody's going into a coffee shop, seeing that warning sticker and thinking 'ah whoops better get out of here' are they? The warning 'cancer-causing' has no effect.

This works, if you have 20 coffee shops, and one of them has "there's asbestos in this building" warning.

If you have warnings literally everywhere, for minor things, that noone really cares about, because the risks are miniscule, people will start ignoring even the dangerous but identical-looking signs. "this item causes cancer" ... are we talking about asbestos, or are we talking about a roasted potato? If the labels are the same, people stop noticing them.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#13

Post by anonAndOn » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #11

Before the emissions control feeding frenzy begins, let's try to remember that further regulation without industry input contributes to further inflation & moves more polluting production overseas where we have no control over its impact on the world. Yes, we should aim for zero emissions. Yes, the health impacts carry their own costs not to mention the human tragedy. However, good public policy is about rewarding go…

You mean they'll be like oil fields out in the middle of a desert where nobody lives? If it's gonna off-gas, might as well be in the middle of nowhere.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#14

Post by csee » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #6

kybishop wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I'm aware CA puts many warning stickers on various products... but isn't it possible that profit-seeking corporations are, in fact, using cancer-causing materials simply because they're cheaper?

People don't seem to change their behaviour due to those warnings. Nobody's going into a coffee shop, seeing that warning sticker and thinking 'ah whoops better get out of here' are they? The warning 'cancer-causing' has no effect.

Do you have any evidence for this statement?

I have changed my behavior in response to health info on labels, so this is anecdotal evidence against your assertion.

PR campaigns have been known to work, e.g. alcohol in Russia in the 90s.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#15

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

csee wrote: post #14

chrisseaton wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't seem to change their behaviour due to those warnings. Nobody's going into a coffee shop, seeing that warning sticker and thinking 'ah whoops better get out of here' are they? The warning 'cancer-causing' has no effect.

Do you have any evidence for this statement? I have changed my behavior in response to health info on labels, so this is anecdotal evidence against your assertion. PR campaigns have been known to work, e.g. alcohol in Russia in the 90s.

> Do you have any evidence for this statement?

The fact that every coffee shop in California is still open, despite people being warned for years that they sell products that cause cancer. The vast majority of people clearly do not care about the warning.

And what do you think is the benefit of putting unsupported warnings on things? Do you think it's actively beneficial? Do you think it's harmless? If it's beneficial or harmless we might as well go ahead and put a warning label on absolutely everything regardless. Then how do we react to this linked article? We'd ignore it.

If you're the one who wants warning labels on things that don't need warning about then you justify that position!

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#16

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #11

Before the emissions control feeding frenzy begins, let's try to remember that further regulation without industry input contributes to further inflation & moves more polluting production overseas where we have no control over its impact on the world. Yes, we should aim for zero emissions. Yes, the health impacts carry their own costs not to mention the human tragedy. However, good public policy is about rewarding go…

[deleted]

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#17

Post by jessriedel » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

kybishop wrote: post #4

chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Californians have watered down the phrase 'cancer-causing' so much that probably nobody cares! I guess being down-wind of a Starbucks counts as being in a sacrifice zone according to Californian regulations!

Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I'm aware CA puts many warning stickers on various products... but isn't it possible that profit-seeking corporations are, in fact, using cancer-causing materials simply because they're cheaper?

The point isn't that the amount of cancer caused is literally zero. Just by chance, everything will have some (generally infinitesimal) effect on cancer, and often it will be positive. The question is whether "causes cancer" is being applied to products that cause amounts of cancer that are so small that it's not worth warning people about. That consumer products and businesses are covered in these warning and few people take them seriously is prima facie evidence that this is the case, but you'd have to dig into the numbers to be sure.

For instance, Wikipedia:

> The requirements apply to amounts above what would present a 1-in-100,000 risk of cancer assuming lifetime exposure (for carcinogens)

Using the standard ~$5M statistical value of life, this mean that you need to label a product if it is estimated to impose the equivalent of $50 in costs if someone is regularly exposed to the chemical over an entire lifetime. I'm not sure what frequency of exposure is being assumed here, but naively that means that if I use the product once a week, it requires notification of about 2 cents worth of harm per usage.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#18

Post by maxk42 » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

kybishop wrote: post #4

chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Californians have watered down the phrase 'cancer-causing' so much that probably nobody cares! I guess being down-wind of a Starbucks counts as being in a sacrifice zone according to Californian regulations!

Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I'm aware CA puts many warning stickers on various products... but isn't it possible that profit-seeking corporations are, in fact, using cancer-causing materials simply because they're cheaper?

They're not labeling things that are particularly known to be harmful. CA Prop 65 warnings are on all rice, coffee, and multi-tenant garages. When you begin labeling things that common and benign as "cancer-causing" people learn to tune it out. Pretty sure rice, coffee, and/or multi-tenant garages are found pretty much everywhere.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#19

Post by frazbin » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Californians have watered down the phrase 'cancer-causing' so much that probably nobody cares! I guess being down-wind of a Starbucks counts as being in a sacrifice zone according to Californian regulations!

Yep, California has raised the bar, and to do so it had to take risks. In particular, it risked looking silly-- and in penis-politics looking silly in front of your opponents is an existential risk. The good news is, some of these risks paid off and became national standards. So, thanks to California, you are poisoned a little less every day.

Speaking personally: fuck you for making fun of that effort!

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#20

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

frazbin wrote: post #19

chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Californians have watered down the phrase 'cancer-causing' so much that probably nobody cares! I guess being down-wind of a Starbucks counts as being in a sacrifice zone according to Californian regulations!

Yep, California has raised the bar, and to do so it had to take risks. In particular, it risked looking silly-- and in penis-politics looking silly in front of your opponents is an existential risk. The good news is, some of these risks paid off and became national standards. So, thanks to California, you are poisoned a little less every day. Speaking personally: fuck you for making fun of that effort!

Don't know why you've chosen to use personal abuse? That's against the site guidelines here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html please don't do that.

I'm not making fun of it - I'm saying it's actively harmful because when people now see articles like this and read 'cancer-causing' they'll think 'like Starbucks coffee, so I'm happy with that risk - not a problem'.