Hacker News Reader

Comment by londons_explore | Hacker News Reader

It's time we moved towards a world of "you may not vent anything to the atmosphere".

Ie. nothing may have a chimney, exhaust pipe, pressure release valve, or anything similar.

All gases must be stored in a tank and reprocessed at gas recycling facilities, which can separate out and sell the gases.

Even in your house, when you 'ventilate' the house, you are taking the stinky stuffy polluted indoor air and putting it into the environment. The volatile organics, farts, Nox from your cooker, CO2 from breath, and cooking smells aren't 'natural'. Instead, your house should purify its own gases with filters.

Will it be expensive? Yes. But looking after the environment is expensive. But it's worth it.

View on HN

This is the sort of extremist attitude that alienates the general population from all environmental measures.

Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still plastic, it enrages even many with a moderate amount of goodwill.

I agree we need to treat this seriously and invest a lot of time and effort, but if we don't address first the biggest issues (factories, automobiles), why force me to recycle the exhaust from my cigarette lighter?

>Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still plastic, it enrages even many with a moderate amount of goodwill.

This is a false equivalency when compared with the top comment. The equivalent statement would be "only car exhausts must be captured but we don't care about the rest of the gasses."

The commenter said all gasses and exhausts must be contained, and I tend to agree that this is a good goal to move towards.

Most of the population, quite frankly, is wrong about a lot of things like this. We see that from the hate for regulation partially driven by propaganda from businesses.

As a side note, cigarette smoke is also considered exhausting waste to the atmosphere.

> The commenter said all gasses and exhausts must be contained, and I tend to agree that this is a good goal to move towards.

> Most of the population, quite frankly, is wrong about a lot of things like this. We see that from the hate for regulation partially driven by propaganda from businesses.

Yet we do not live in that world and it is in fact not a goal to achieve. It's over the top and nonsensical. Like the commentor stated above you its extremist views like this one which will make the common folks squash any movement towards "green new deals." Just watch what happens when the climate nuts like Extinction Rebellion try to interfere in the normal people's day.

They ER types get crushed because real people do not have time or money for horseshit.

Climate change will merely be adapted too. But not in the expensive fart counting way some in this thread suggest.

Humanity will continue to expand and use technology to solve our biggest problems.

The world is in fact not ending. It is changing just as it always has. Humanity will do the same.

What sort of temperatures do you think humans can survive in? We are living organisms after all

> Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still plastic.

I don't think there is a single person upset at the plastic straw ban because they didn't ban even more single use plastic.

I'm not even sure that's logically possible, because that's not being upset at the straws being banned, it's being upset at the other things not being banned.

I am one of those people. I'm more willing to accept a more stringent requirement if I also perceive it as fair and can see an actual improvement in something.

A restriction is fair for instance if it draws a cost/benefit line, and just bans all things on the wrong side of that line. Even if I don't agree, the conversation is at least around where to draw the line, and not on absurdities.

Banning plastic straws without banning plastic cups is mostly useless and inconvenient.

But it wouldn't be inconvenient if they banned more stuff?

Talk me through your thinking here, because it's not obvious to me and seems like a very poor post-hoc rationalization.

It would be more inconvenient, but at the same time it would feel more self-consistent.

It you'd want to limit alcohol consumption (just an example), you don't want to ban tequila but allow gin for instance. You can say ban anything with more than 15% alcohol by volume -- that would feel harsh but more fair.

I'm really not rationalizing, for me and some others there needs to be a perceived fairness in the restrictions.

You seem to be suggesting that our homes become airtight enclosures with filtered exhausts. Perhaps even an airlock to get in and out of the house.

No outdoor barbecues, no campfires. What's next? No farting in the park?

No thanks.

I'm all for regulating industries, automobiles, etc. and to some extent what kinds of chemicals and materials can be used in the home but don't come telling me that I can't open a window to ventilate my house.

Cow farts are already a huge producer of atmospheric methane, a greenhouse gas

There is at least some controversy around the actual impact of cow's methane in global warming [0] [1].

I was mostly talking about humans farting in the park though. In any case, I guess the solution is to install catalytic converter in all human and animal exhausts, like we do for cars, I guess. Right? :D

[0] https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-a... [1] https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-methane-cattle-warm...

That people live in such a fantasy land is concerning when energy production regulation is about to plunge the western world into full managed decline.

> when you 'ventilate' the house, you are taking the stinky stuffy polluted indoor air and putting it into the environment

This is some different level of ecological concern. People over here straight out burn furniture, rubber, and plastic in their heating units, burn outdoors their green garden waste during autumn, remove faulty catalytic converters and adblue-bulshit from their cars. With adblue removed one can literally smell the brilliance of German automotive engineering. If we're into tightening the regulations, we should start with controlling the home heating units and measuring car exhaust gasses.

Absolutely not. Ridiculous regulations would beg to be ignored and summarily ludicrous by common folks. The climate is what it is. But its hardly to the level that your actions call for. No. Just no.

I keep thinking of a “you wouldn’t piss in the pool” analogy for a marketing campaign.

A lot of people piss in the pool, unfortunately.

But won’t admit it :)

Most of the stuff we pollute our inside air with is toxic for us. So we could get an easy win by stopping doing that.

Filtered ventilation and heat recovery and good insulation are a powerful combination though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com