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

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

attheu.utah.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 352 posts

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

#101

Post by tclancy »

edm0nd wrote: post #26
dyauspitr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with Captain Planet tier cartoon villains in power.

Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda? >Captain Planet and the Planeteers (1990–1996) was a pioneering animated series designed by Ted Turner and producer Barbara Pyle as environmental, pro-social "edutainment" to influence children towards ecological activism. It aimed to combat pollution and encourage environmental stewardship, often using over-t…

>Our parents let us get brainwashed by hippies and corporations as kids haha

Yes, well the alternative, where the entire media system that might offer a cartoon like Captain Planet is owned by one side, is working out super well and in no way slants anyone's view of anything. Good God, my dad still fights weird battles like this tiny skirmish without ever being able to see the larger picture and how immaterial this is.

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

#102

Post by [deleted] »

davidw wrote: post #99
breakyerself wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough. If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm…

There's certainly some "environmentalism" out there that's using the banner of the environment for other ends. Here's one example: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-02/california-... I mostly agree with you, but it is worth paying attention to the details.

[deleted]

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

#103

Post by throw900912 »

epistasis wrote: post #9
russdill wrote: 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…

> to keep unprofitable and ancient coal generators going long after anybody wants to pay for the high maintenance.

In EU 90% of expenses of running coal plants are taxes, yet it can still compete with subsidized green energy! It would be in everybody best interest, to allow building modern coal plants, to replace toxic inefficient stuff from 1960ties.

But with the overregulated and overtaxes industry, we have the worst from all options.

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

#104

Post by Braxton1980 »

cfiggers wrote: post #28

In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be force…

>Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected.

I'm aware of political parties and politicians who make statements similar to "We have too many regulations" or "stop big government" I'm not aware of opposite.

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

#105

Post by breakyerself »

prasadjoglekar wrote: post #42
epistasis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There is no technical or economic reason to want coal power today. A quick look at the PJM interconnect data would disagree with you. About a quarter of the live power is coal. https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx That serves 65+ Million people in the north east and is keeping them from dying of cold this past week, including today (Temp outside in the mid-hudson valley is 15F / -9C), and overnight will…

Coal is the most expensive form of energy. We need the energy those coal plants are producing, but we don't need the energy to come from coal and the sooner we replace those coal plants the sooner the people getting that energy can get a break on energy costs. Assuming data centers don't offset the reductions via creating excessive demand.

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

#106

Post by adrianN »

Cerium wrote: post #97
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know of any research or calculations of what that number ought to be?

If you wanted to pay for direct air capture of CO2 to directly "undo" your climate effect of driving, the cost would currently be about $6 per gallon. Price comes from [1], found [2] looking for a second opinion on current direct air capture cost. [1] https://theclimatecapitalist.com/articles/gas-should-cost-13... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/phildeluna/2024/11/29/will-dire...

I wonder whether those methods scale at those prices to the theoretical demand of undoing burning gasoline. I doubt it.

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

#107

Post by alistairSH »

jmward01 wrote: post #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…

Yet, there are ample cases of the workers living near a factory and constantly getting cancer. PG&E in Hinckley, CA comes to mind as the most well known, due to the media/movie about Erin Brockovich.

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

#108

Post by ryandrake »

ck2 wrote: post #34

unless you live next to an airport or even remotely close to it then lead is being sprayed all over you, your car and home, daily for THREE DECADES NOW no rush, not like it's poison or does permanent damage to your health/IQ https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

Acknowledging that there is no safe amount of lead exposure, the amount of lead that "is being sprayed all over you" from a tiny handful of piston airplanes is minuscule compared to what we were all exposed to prior to the mid 70s. Like many orders of magnitude. I'd be concerned if I worked at the airport pumping gas or something.

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

#109

Post by breakyerself »

edm0nd wrote: post #26
dyauspitr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with Captain Planet tier cartoon villains in power.

Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda? >Captain Planet and the Planeteers (1990–1996) was a pioneering animated series designed by Ted Turner and producer Barbara Pyle as environmental, pro-social "edutainment" to influence children towards ecological activism. It aimed to combat pollution and encourage environmental stewardship, often using over-t…

The only problem with captain planet was the lack of nuance. Most people driving environmental degredation aren't over the top villains. Just executives acting in the best interest of their shareholders, but in general influencing kids to care about the environment is a pretty positive/pro-social thing to do.

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

#110

Post by adrianN »

nxm wrote: post #62
FatherOfCurses wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be uncontroversial that introducing shit into an environment where it doesn't belong is a bad idea, yet many people remain unconvinced that dumping tons of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere or tons of fertilizer by-products into the oceans is a bad idea.

It's less that but rather the hypocrisy of promoting burdensome regulations and bans implemented in one county (e.g. Germany) which hurts domestic industry and raises costs for its citizens, all while being silent on countries like China and India continuing to massively build more and more coal fired power plants

China is also building more renewables than everyone else combined.
Post reply on HN