A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts • Hacker News Board

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#51

Post by bro45 » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 2:31 AM UTC

robocat wrote: post #48

bro45 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greatest polluter is the economy where the only profitable business model is planned depreciation to make people buy new stuff. Nobody makes durable razors because it's a financial suicide. Nobody makes reliable cars, laptops, toothbrushes. People don't have a choice but to keep replacing things that break. Manufacturing these things wastes oil, coal and pollutes the environment. The businesses don't care because…

That's nonsense: you have to look at the whole economy as an ecology of different waste streams. The $X money you saved on non-disposable goods would instead be $Y spent on consumable goods (e.g. some wine or steak - both near 100% "pollution") or $Z spend on services (e.g. travel - near 100% pollution too) or other permanent goods $U (an expensive jacket that could last 300 years except it got thrown out because it…

Permanent goods cost more, so there will be less money for travel and food. If your point is that in the long run permanent goods cost less and people will have more disposable income, then I can't agree with that. Who's going to pay that income? Companies that no longer have money?

Asking people to do something for the greater good won't lead you anywhere. People are driven by greed that capitalism wisely directs into something productive. This powerful stream of greed won't disappear anywhere, but it's possible to redirect it somewhere else.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#52

Post by dm3730 » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

chewz wrote: post #23

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #7

It brings this up in the article, but I have a very difficult time believing this isn't just because rich countries have shifted manufacturing and mining to poor countries. Look at recycling. We all thought we were so environmentally aware by recycling, but turns out so much "recycling" was just "ship to poor countries to deal with the fallout".

Where do you draw the line? How about Thailand or Malaysia (as an example)? They are both fairly developed and hoping to avoid middle income trap and become developed countries within few years. In both countries disregard for enviroment and citizens health is just sad. Toxic haze, toxic water, pollution, trash. When is the moment that a country decides that it is rich enough and it is time to clean its act? https://…

> In both countries disregard for enviroment and citizens health is just sad. Toxic haze, toxic water, pollution, trash.

That was trash that was illegally dumped there by UK, Australia, and other Western countries, right after China stopped accepting Western trash. https://asklegal.my/p/waste-dumping-malaysia-canada-pollutio...

You use a strong sentence "disregard for environment". What facts lead you say that? Wouldn't the behavior of the Western countries shipping trash over to poorer countries indicate a much stronger disregard for the environment? Or are you implying the environment/nature can be split into one that is local to Western countries and another that is present in developing/poorer countries?

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#53

Post by lonelappde » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 2:51 AM UTC

vinay427 wrote: post #38

marmaduke wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I think of when I see hopefuls talking about climate change, among other topics. The guy who doesn't have enough money for rent? He's not buying the expensive free range eggs. If I were in a developing country, I would be worried that climate accords become a other way for those on top to stay there.

> The guy who doesn't have enough money for rent? He's not buying the expensive free range eggs. I suppose you were just providing a random example, but if you're curious the production of free-range eggs almost certainly pollutes more carbon than caged eggs [1] while being less ethically sound (assuming that was the consideration for cage-free), environmentally responsible, and typically more expensive than plant al…

What's the ethical concern of free-range?

Also, the report you cited was the (conventional) egg industry researching itself, not an independent study.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#54

Post by lonelappde » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 2:54 AM UTC

Expez wrote: post #8

I recently finished Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker and this exact point was made in that book. I'll paraphrase a salient quote from the book: poverty is the greatest polluter. Intuitively this makes great sense: when you're eking out a subsistence living you're not going to care about the environment, but when resources are plenty you can afford to consider other living things too.

Pinker is an over-the-top neoliberal who specializes in motivated reasoning.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#55

Post by tehjoker » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:22 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #7

It brings this up in the article, but I have a very difficult time believing this isn't just because rich countries have shifted manufacturing and mining to poor countries. Look at recycling. We all thought we were so environmentally aware by recycling, but turns out so much "recycling" was just "ship to poor countries to deal with the fallout".

This is one of the many intersections between capitalism and imperialism. Marx said that capitalism would destroy itself when the rate of profit declined as it extracted too much from the working class. However, all the bourgeoisie economists claim Marx was wrong despite this simple and compelling model. After all, the rate of profit didn't decline. How did they (the capitalists) do it?

They did it by expanding markets constantly, invading third world countries to "liberate" their labor forces, synthesizing want via advertising, and many other means.

Now that we are in a globalized economy, we are running out of new markets and cash is just sloshing around. The capitalist class has slashed away as best they can at the welfare state, reducing the possibility of radical redistribution that could right the ship. Maybe now Marx's prediction will have a chance to come true.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#56

Post by paulsutter » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:50 AM UTC

Developing nations can follow-suit, by outsourcing their own pollution intensive activities to ... developing countries?

> rich countries have figured out how to grow with lighter environmental impacts—and developing nations can follow suit

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#57

Post by fyfy18 » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 4:29 AM UTC

dm3730 wrote: post #52

chewz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you draw the line? How about Thailand or Malaysia (as an example)? They are both fairly developed and hoping to avoid middle income trap and become developed countries within few years. In both countries disregard for enviroment and citizens health is just sad. Toxic haze, toxic water, pollution, trash. When is the moment that a country decides that it is rich enough and it is time to clean its act? https://…

> In both countries disregard for enviroment and citizens health is just sad. Toxic haze, toxic water, pollution, trash. That was trash that was illegally dumped there by UK, Australia, and other Western countries, right after China stopped accepting Western trash. https://asklegal.my/p/waste-dumping-malaysia-canada-pollutio... You use a strong sentence "disregard for environment". What facts lead you say that? Would…

I don't think dumping is really the right word here. As it says in the article, importers are illegally accepting the waste and making a good chunk of money from it. The private companies who are disposing of waste from Western countries are happy to pay these guys to get rid of it. Still they could try to check what happens to the waste, rather than just turning a blind eye. But when the mafia can dump nuclear waste in your own back yard, I guess it's hard to see what happens on the other side of the world to some plastic bottles...

https://gizmodo.com/the-mob-is-secretly-dumping-nuclear-wast...

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#58

Post by drdrey » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 5:19 AM UTC

bro45 wrote: post #37

drdrey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not true. The US emits 16 tons of CO2 per capita. For many African countries, that number is 1-2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The greatest polluter is everybody living in large single family homes full of things manufactured on other continents, with AC, multiple cars, eating red meat every day.

The greatest polluter is the economy where the only profitable business model is planned depreciation to make people buy new stuff. Nobody makes durable razors because it's a financial suicide. Nobody makes reliable cars, laptops, toothbrushes. People don't have a choice but to keep replacing things that break. Manufacturing these things wastes oil, coal and pollutes the environment. The businesses don't care because…

Regarding houses: I was referring more to the size of the housing than its materials. Larger housing correlates directly with higher energy use, probably in the form of heating and air conditioning.

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#59

Post by jfnixon » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 8:51 AM UTC

bro45 wrote: post #37

drdrey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not true. The US emits 16 tons of CO2 per capita. For many African countries, that number is 1-2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The greatest polluter is everybody living in large single family homes full of things manufactured on other continents, with AC, multiple cars, eating red meat every day.

The greatest polluter is the economy where the only profitable business model is planned depreciation to make people buy new stuff. Nobody makes durable razors because it's a financial suicide. Nobody makes reliable cars, laptops, toothbrushes. People don't have a choice but to keep replacing things that break. Manufacturing these things wastes oil, coal and pollutes the environment. The businesses don't care because…

"The greatest polluter is the economy where the only profitable business model is planned depreciation to make people buy new stuff."

Cite please, or is this just your opinion?

Re: A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts

#60

Post by new2628 » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 9:29 AM UTC

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #12

new2628 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to contradict the simple observation that, by and large, the poorer a country the more biodiversity it has.

Not necessarily- a poor country with high biodiversity or other natural resources are a known phenomenon [0]. Also, another known issue is that the most polluted rivers are often from developing countries, partially because developed countries are sending their trash there. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

Resource curse is an interesting phenomenon, but I think biodiversity (~ the healthiness/robustness of the remaining natural environment) and e.g. the amount of accessible oil/gas a country has are fundamentally different aspects.