= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Benjamin_Lyons comments on Notes on "The Limits to Growth" and surrounding material - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (16)
In the book, does this cost refer to the cost of a technological solution to pollution, or does it also/instead refer to the cost of society coordinating to reduce pollution?
There's not a clear divide between the two things (e.g. it could be that what's needed is a technology that facilitates coordination). I don't remember the exact wording in the book.
I ask because as the costs of pollution rise, so might the benefits.
What are the benefits of pollution?
People don't pollute randomly. They pollute as a necessary by-product of other activities. There aren't, as far as I know, any benefits to pollution per se, but there are benefits to the sorts of activities that produce pollution. The costs of pollution may rise, but that doesn't imply that at any point the cost of pollution won't be worth it (except possibly on the margin due to the externality).
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. The matter under discussion is the negative externalities of pollution (perhaps to future generations). I don't know if there's enough Uranium or Plutonium for this to be a realistic hypothetical, but one could imagine a world in which nuclear reactor waste accumulated to such a degree so as to substantially reduce the amount of inhabitable land.
Thermodynamic inefficiency will always produce at least some heat pollution and I think it's safe to predict that the cost of achieving 99.99% efficiency is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than 99.9% efficiency.