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

121–130 of 352 posts

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

#121

Post by jajuuka »

II2II wrote: post #91
zahlman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda? Well, yes, it isn't subtle. It turns out that some propaganda is just correct , however.

Captain Planet always bothered me as a kid, even though I was (and continue to be) supportive of environmental protection. There was too much evil for the sake of evil. People don't destroy the environment because they want to. The destroy it because they don't care. They don't care because they are driven by greed, or some other motivation that is ultimately damaging to the environment, society, and civilization.

It's a cartoon meant to sell merch. It wasn't exactly meant to be a nuanced reflection of reality.

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

#122

Post by cucumber3732842 »

zug_zug wrote: post #100
rayiner wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an industry where everyone sells a completely fungible product such cost savings generally are passed on to consumers. Oil companies can profit in the short term due to fluctuations in the price of oil and things like that, but not from something like lead additives, which everyone had been using for decades.

I think you're missing the point -- the point is that gasoline companies KNEW ABOUT alternative lead-free substitutes for anti-knock (such as ethanol) and chose lead because they perceived it was less profitable. [1] Specifically because ethanol wasn't patentable and TEL was, and ultimately it WAS patented. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

Ethanol has a propensity to suck up ambient moisture and is more demanding of rubbers and happily attacks aluminum.

In an age of natural rubber components, poorly sealed fuel systems with steel tanks and aluminum carburetors pretty much anything other than ethanol is the "right choice".

And once they ruled out ethanol they settled on lead because it was cheap/profitable. Obviously they chose wrong, they should've picked something more expensive but less terrible.

These weren't cartoon villains with monocles twirling their mustaches. They were normal humans making pragmatic decisions based on the constraints they faced. Without knowing the details people cannot understand what future similar fact patterns may look like.

That said, it should be no surprise to anyone that nobody wants to talk about "well we don't know how bad the harm of leaded exhaust is, we know it's not good, but it's diffuse and undefined so we'll round it to zero/negligible" type decision making, for that sort of unknown rounds to zero logic underpins in whole or part all manner of modern policy discourse.

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

#123

Post by breakyerself »

lacunary wrote: post #112
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…

what kind of common sense wisdom are we talking about here, can you give an example? understanding the impact of regulation designed to impact both the environment and the economy, two incredibly complex systems our experts are only beginning to understand, isn't generally a matter of common sense

The common sense wisdom I'm referring to is that environmental regulation is in general bad or does more harm than good.

That's an opinion I encounter constantly and it's a meme that was manufactured in PR company meeting rooms, right wing think tanks, and neo-classical economists theoretical models of how the world works.

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

#124

Post by busterarm »

breakyerself wrote: post #86
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…

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…

How do you explain the bug up its ass that the EPA has about auto racing?

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

#125

Post by busterarm »

an_account wrote: post #118
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…

CEQA in California is very often used to block apartments in existing urban areas. So, instead, California continues to mostly build single family housing sprawl into natural habitats. A clear example of environmental regulation hurting the environment and the climate. And of course the affordability of housing.

And all of the harsh chemicals that get released when that new construction burns up in wildfires...

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

#126

Post by bevr1337 »

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.

This article doesn't speak to me. What I read is, "Won't someone think of the poor UC system?" But the UC system is _massive_

> But Casa Joaquin’s neighboring, overwhelmingly white homeowners could have used CEQA to demand costly studies and multiple hearings before Berkeley officials.

Important to note that white people are well-represented at UC Berkley too. https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley-quick-facts

> More recently, a series of court rulings that culminated last year nearly forced Berkeley to withhold admission of thousands of high school seniors...

Graduating high-school seniors are also known as incoming freshman or legal adults.

> ... because the state’s judges agreed with NIMBY neighborhood groups that population growth is an inherent environmental impact under CEQA.

Ok, let's see how big the UC school system is...

> The University maintains approximately 6,000 buildings enclosing 137 million gross square feet on approximately 30,000 acres across its ten campuses, five medical centers, nine agricultural research and extension centers, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2017/chapt...

I'm not seeing evidence that protestors were primarily NIMBYs and pesky white homeowners. I can find several articles citing _student_ protests.

> “It’s students who set up People’s Park in the first place, so it’s our place to defend it,” said Athena Davis, a first-year student at UC Berkeley who spoke at the rally. “It’s up to students to reject the idea that our housing needs to come at the price of destroying green space and homes for the marginalized.”

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/01/30/protesters-tear-down...

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

#127

Post by coob »

breakyerself wrote: post #86
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…

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…

Nah some environmental regulation is batshit.

Literally, in the UK you can’t build if there’s a protected bat species in the area.

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

#129

Post by convolvatron »

gosub100 wrote: post #33
AdamN wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically everybody agrees with what you're saying which is what makes this an insidious comment. In general the pressure against regulation comes from narrow winners (oil industry for instance) whereas the pressure for regulations generally comes from people focused on the greater good (even if they are misled by other narrow winners, for instance compliance firms).

There are valid reasons to oppose regulations. They can be used to create barriers of entry for small businesses, for example. They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

the largest unaccounted for victims of environmental degradation are our children and their children. given that we can't even keep from poisoning our own well water for our own uses today, it really does like on the whole we're failing to regulate sufficiently.

which isn't to argue that they shouldn't make sense. or that they should be used to tilt the playing field due to corruption, but on the balance claiming that we are currently overregulated is pretty indefensible.

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

#130

Post by bluGill »

zug_zug wrote: post #100
rayiner wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an industry where everyone sells a completely fungible product such cost savings generally are passed on to consumers. Oil companies can profit in the short term due to fluctuations in the price of oil and things like that, but not from something like lead additives, which everyone had been using for decades.

I think you're missing the point -- the point is that gasoline companies KNEW ABOUT alternative lead-free substitutes for anti-knock (such as ethanol) and chose lead because they perceived it was less profitable. [1] Specifically because ethanol wasn't patentable and TEL was, and ultimately it WAS patented. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

It is more than that - lead and ethanol have other properties that engines that use them need to handle. Lead also acted as a lubricant and parts designed for engines that assumed lead fuel were designed with softer valve seats - switch to unleaded with otherwise equal octane and your will destroy the engine. (though experience shows that unless you were driving your car on a race trace most cars worked fine for longer than the car lasted). Ethanol will destroy some forms of rubber and so you need to use different seals in some parts.

TEL was patentable, but those patents were long expired before there was a big push to eliminate leaded gas.

Post reply on HN