top | item 28166465

(no title)

elproxy | 4 years ago

The Environmental Kuznets Curve is problematic though, see for instance: https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2020/10/9/response-to-mcafe...

discuss

order

nwah1|4 years ago

Massive amounts of resource extraction still occurs in places like the US, Canada, and Australia. The US is the world's largest oil producer now. Canada and the US have huge logging operations, and are huge agricultural exporters. Australia has enormous mining operations. And indeed all three still use and extract coal, and most people rely on internal combustion engines for transportation.

Despite all of this, air quality is relatively high. Water quality is relatively high. Ecological preservation efforts have restored all sorts of habitats and saved species from extinction.

Gina Rinehart has become a billionaire in Australia by owning a massive coal mining operation. A lot of the coal is burned locally, but most is exported to Asia. Asia isn't forced to buy Australian coal. Asian countries could instead put a tax on dirty energy, and encourage cleaner energy. But some combination of reasons keeps that low in their list of priorities.

And even if they unfortunately wish to continue to burn coal, it would be possible to force the use of air scrubbers and purchasing purer grades of coal. But that isn't pursued for the same reasons.

elproxy|4 years ago

Yes, and as pointed out in the link I shared, air pollution is part of the limited impacts it is applicable to, but points out "it does not apply to impacts like resource use and energy use".