Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by systemBuilder 961 days ago
You're a fool if you think the EPA is at fault. A 2022 Ford F-series catalytic converter costs $824 at retail, much less in volume. The average car in the USA is 12 years old so that's $70 per year per car to have a catalytic converter. Each year almost 300,000 early deaths (1 in 1100) people are prevented by EPA pollution controls. People tend to die about 10 years early from air pollution deaths (MIT - 2013). The return on investment is estimated to be 30:1.

https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-cost...

Air Pollution dropped 77% from 1970 - 2020. Assuming that early deaths scale up and down linearly with air pollution, I calculate (***) that this should result in the average person living at least 3.8 months longer, at a cost of $70/yr, or a rate of $266/yr for a longer life. What rate would YOU pay annually to live a year longer?

A gym membership costs at least $500 annually (including travel and equipment) and yields an average 3.4-year increase in life expectancy, but you spend 150 minutes a week exercising which is 1.6 waking-years engaged in exercising ... so the net is $500 annually for 1.8 net years of extra (free-time) of life, or $277/yr annually to live a year longer?

=== Footnotes ===

(***) - https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-...

According to a 2013 MIT study the death rate from air pollution is 200,000 per year in the USA, and people die about a decade too soon, so 2M years of lifetime are lost per year. 1/70th of our country dies each year which is 4.7m people. So if air pollution were eradicated from 2013 levels, people would get to live about 5.1 months (12 * 2m/4.7m) longer, at a cost of only $70/car/yr over their lifetime as adults. Air pollution is down 77% from peak, so If I take 0.77 of 5.1 months I get 3.9 months. In 2020 air pollution was already less than half of 1970 levels so the savins are actually much, much higher.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1137375/air-pollution-de....

1 comments

https://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75ye... I still remember when the auto industry said Catalytic converters were the only way and testified to Congress they weren't ready yet so they couldn't meet climate goals. Toyota through a holistic approach was able to meet the emission standards without a Catalytic converter, but was still forced to adopt one even if it wasn't more efficient than their current design as it was a one size fits all solution.

Sort of like saying a gym membership is good for everyone since it increases life expectancy, and not taking into account blue collar workers might get the equivalent of a workout from just doing their job, and that going to the gym after 9 hours of physical labor might do more harm than good for those people