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

Post by wolvoleo » Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 1:36 AM UTC

jhallenworld wrote: post #68

rayiner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had research to support the EPA phase down of lead. Also, your assertion that lead “helps fuel companies” is fundamentally mistaken. Gasoline is a mass-produced commodity. Oil companies have single digit profit margins. These companies aren’t making Big Tech profit margins where they can absorb higher costs without passing them along to consumers. Cost savings from things like gasoline additives accrue to consumer…

Lead helped fuel company profits because it was cheaper than the other anti-knock additives, like ethanol.

Post by wolvoleo » Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 1:53 AM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #179

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…

This sounds nice, but in the context of actual politics it's completely meaningless. It's like saying that some people are dangerous criminals who need to be locked up, and other people are upstanding citizens who should be free to live their lives. Everybody would agree with this. The disagreement is in how you sort people. What category encompasses someone who belongs to the opposing political party? That sort of t…

Post by wolvoleo » Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 2:00 AM UTC

tjohns wrote: post #232

jabl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall there's one factory on the planet still producing TEL, so once they decide it's no longer profitable it's over. Aviation gasoline is probably the one market that still keeps it afloat, when/if piston aviation switches over the remaining market is small and insignificant.

At least in the US, the current proposed plan is to phase out leaded avgas by 2030: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/draft_unleaded_avgas...

Post by permo-w » Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 3:19 AM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #238

throwway120385 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really easy to sit and demand evidence before regulating something. But consider that if we waited for hard evidence to accumulate before banning lead in gasoline, we likely never would have banned it because the hard evidence wouldn't exist. I also don't agree on the principle that regulations are "harmful" or "helpful." Rather, you have to define who the regulation harms, and who it helps. For example antitrus…

So we should legislate evidence free based on the vibes of whichever tribe is currently in power? We're doomed.

Post by tastyfreeze » Sat, Feb 07, 2026, 3:27 AM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #237

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…

>Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. Ok, strong example here: the long term efforts to stop forest fires caused build up of fuel that should have burned up in small fires which then instead burned up ecosystems which evolved for small forest fires and instead were destroyed in large ones. That's a well intentioned environmenta…