Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (62) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84350 
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 07/28/23 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's not even a successful cherrypicked example. The 'safe to swim' caliber of self-congratulatory schtick government are fond of spreading are lipstick on a pig, sir.

It was just illustrative.

As I cited upthread, levels of industrial pollution across the United States have materially declined since the adoption of the CWA. Not just the rates of pollution - overall, the levels of ambient pollution present in the waters of the U.S. are significantly lower than prior to the adoption of the Clean Water Act. From the abstract of the study mentioned in that article:

"Since the 1972 U.S. Clean Water Act, government and industry have invested over $1 trillion to abate water pollution, or $100 per person-year. Over half of U.S. stream and river miles, however, still violate pollution standards. We use the most comprehensive set of files ever compiled on water pollution and its determinants, including 50 million pollution readings from 240,000 monitoring sites and a network model of all U.S. rivers, to study water pollution's trends, causes, and welfare consequences. We have three main findings. First, water pollution concentrations have fallen substantially. Between 1972 and 2001, for example, the share of waters safe for fishing grew by 12 percentage points."

nrdc.org - Fifty years after how far have we come
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/1/349/509...

Again, although the U.S. population is half again larger than it was, and the GDP is significantly larger than it was, prior to the adoption of the CWA our waters are cleaner and continuing to get cleaner.

Overpopulation is not the culprit. Pollution does not have to increase with rising population. Investment in pollution control measures (specifically wastewater treatment plants and controls on industrial discharges) and regulatory requirements can and do allow us to increase economic growth without increasing pollution.

Whether we choose to do that is another story - though generally speaking, the richer the country the more they're going to choose to "spend" some of that wealth on environmental quality. Regardless, it is entirely possible to grow one's economy and population without increasing pollution.

Albaby
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (62) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community