Comment by ghastmaster | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghastmaster | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Are we talking about pollution or CO2? Pollution from vehicles is largely controlled. It is not perfect by any means. CO2 is not pollution. It is a necessary component of plant growth and animal life.

> Why did they lobby against pollution reduction

For the same reasons I mentioned previously. Arbitrary fees and regulations can stifle the natural advancement. The patent in this case shows that they were working on reducing CO2 emissions which would benefit them in the long run as ICE engines would be cleaner. As such, they would be better competition to future electric competitors. Hence, more oil being purchased for their bottom line.

If they spend money and time lobbying and paying fees, that is money that is not spent on productive activities. Furthermore, it costs consumers more to purchase their product. This cost to consumers restricts their ability to invest in themselves and their future. Little Johnny wants to go to school to study clean nuclear fusion? Too bad, Ma & Pa have been paying more for goods and services for 18 years. Little Johnny will have to flip burgers instead.

C02 isn't a pollutant insofar as any amount being a pure negative but too much of it is obviously negative. This is a distinction that nobody including the parent poster or you are confused about.

The free market might over time get us cleaner engines when interests align but in all honestly the biggest factor driving cleaner engines has always been regulation and the next logical step for that regulation is to move towards forbidding the manufacture of new gas powered consumer vehicles which we can likely accomplish by the 2030s with regulation.

If too much money is spent lobbying we could very well make the productive part of that equation where money changes hands illegal, watch it become vastly less effective, and watch companies investment in same spin down quickly.

>The free market might over time get us cleaner engines when interests align but in all honestly the biggest factor driving cleaner engines has always been regulation...

One scientist learned that smog was a result of automobile emissions as early as 1948 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arie_Jan_Haagen-Smit). That was 56 years after automobiles were first produced. Shortly thereafter, the Federal government started tackling the issue in 1955 (https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/evolution-clean-a...). Why would companies invest in cleaner emissions if the government was going to make mandates that would throw a wrench in their investments? It has been better for them to wait and see what they have to do. They were never given the chance to self regulate.

> One scientist learned that smog was a result of automobile emissions as early as 1948 .... That was 56 years after automobiles were first produced. Shortly thereafter ... in 1955 .... They were never given the chance to self regulate.

60 years is 'never given the chance'?

Fortunately all of history exists and we can look at the fact that where regulation wasn't imposed and see that the majority who were most willing to foist high external costs on society were able to out compete any minority that behaved more admirably and most markets tend to end up dominated by a few players nearly exclusively from the less ethical fellows as even a small initial advantage is magnified because higher profits in one cycle provide a successively higher advantage in future cycles. Economists have been explaining why this is for literally centuries. Markets don't handle externalities without external regulation. Despite centuries of examples we still have folks asking for "self regulation" which we know doesn't work.

Companies have and will kill thousands of people to have slightly more money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com