PDA

View Full Version : If we had the perfect source of energy...


Arcesious
08-02-2008, 12:04 PM
This is hypothetical thread, one of those 'what could happen' discussions.
Alright, imagine if tommorow, mankind suddenly discovered some great answer to producing exponential amounts of clean, reliable energy? so efficient that the system of producing it could be reduced to the size of a small battery... And it would be able to replace all other forms of producing energy... Not that it matters 'how' in this discussion. Just, what would happen.

What would happen if a way to create energy so efficient was found that only several power plants across the entire world would to needed to produce power for the whole world, forever? What would it do to mankind? Would it solve things, or make things worse?

Darth_Yuthura
08-02-2008, 12:34 PM
Depends on the energy's capital costs and who possesses it. If Germany discovered how to harness fusion(the holy grail of energy), it might not share it with the rest of the world. That could lead to wars with them that could have been avoided. If it is harnessed by everyone, then it would likely end war indefinitely because energy fuels everything that a nation needs.

The question of 'how' has to be addressed in order to predict and consider the outcomes of this 'holy grail' of energy. I won't unless another brings it up.

Litofsky
08-02-2008, 12:49 PM
Currently, Humanity is locked in a mini-struggle over energy, oil, being the most lucrative form of energy today.

So, if we were to suddenly have the entire world powered, forever, I believe that we would find something else to war about. After all, with energy already paid for, our governments could spend the rest of their budgets building up their militaries. :xp:

Darth_Yuthura
08-02-2008, 01:18 PM
If we had enough energy, it would allow for almost every other resource to be provided for. It would allow for us to build to the sky if there isn't enough land. Desalinization would provide all the water we would ever need. Aluminum is expensive because of the energy it needs... that would provide a much cheaper metal than steel and much more desirable. Transportation would also be conquered to a large degree.

It would detract many jobs that revolve around power sources, though. Odds are that we wouldn't invest in military as much if all we need is within reach and can't be stolen or lost easily.

Nedak
08-02-2008, 03:24 PM
It would never happen.

Even if we had such technology I'm fairly certain companies wouldn't be selling them, since they can make much more money off other fuels, like oil.

Also, I doubt we would ever discover such energy, because nobody wants it to be found.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 03:48 PM
It would never happen.

Even if we had such technology I'm fairly certain companies wouldn't be selling them, since they can make much more money off other fuels, like oil.

If I had a perfect source of energy, and I sold it to you for $1000 and told you you never had to use gasoline/oil again, you wouldn't buy it? Now multiply that by the 300 million people in the USA - not to mention overseas.



Also, I doubt we would ever discover such energy, because nobody wants it to be found.

That's not entirely true ;)

_EW_

Nedak
08-02-2008, 04:08 PM
If I had a perfect source of energy, and I sold it to you for $1000 and told you you never had to use gasoline/oil again, you wouldn't buy it? Now multiply that by the 300 million people in the USA - not to mention overseas.

I read somewhere that America spent $1,132,824,000 on gasoline alone in 2006. What makes you think that companies would want to give up all of that yearly profit? Sure, they would make that if they sold this hypothetical device, but nobody would need to buy them again. They would only make profit off them once.

It's all about money my friend.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 04:11 PM
I read somewhere that America spent $1,132,824,000 on gasoline alone in 2006. What makes you think that companies would want to give up all of that yearly profit? Sure, they would make that if they sold this hypothetical device, but nobody would need to buy them again. They would only make profit off them once.

It's all about money my friend.

I'm not a gas company.

The people looking for these new fuels aren't oil execs.

_EW_

Nedak
08-02-2008, 04:18 PM
I'm not a gas company.
The people looking for these new fuels aren't oil execs.


Of course not.

It would work the same as how the hydrogen fuel cell idea died.

oil companies would either buy off the inventor or "get rid of" the inventor.

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 04:22 PM
Of course not.

It would work the same as how the hydrogen fuel cell idea died.

oil companies would either buy off the inventor or "get rid of" the inventor.

Hopefully the inventor would have enough integrity to not let himself get bought out.

As for getting rid of them? Srsly?

_EW_

Nedak
08-02-2008, 04:26 PM
As for getting rid of them? Srsly?


Why not? It probably wouldn't be the first time.

Do you really think an oil company that makes $1,132,824,000 a year would just step aside?

EnderWiggin
08-02-2008, 04:27 PM
Why not? It probably wouldn't be the first time.

Do you really think an oil company that makes $1,132,824,000 a year would just step aside?

Do you really think Exxon will hire a hitman (and get away with it)?

_EW_

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 04:28 PM
Han: there are plenty of big companies in other sectors that would eye a huge profit, and imagine the support from governments, especially energy-starved ones. As for why the hydrogen idea is on ice, look up how hard it is to store hydrogen on a car.

And if big oil have such power, why is renevables racing towards dominance picking up speed all the time.

Nedak
08-02-2008, 04:44 PM
Do you really think Exxon will hire a hitman (and get away with it)?

Doesn't even need to be a hitman..

As I've said, we've already had countless opportunities to stop using gas, but for some reason our government (and oil companies) never take any interest in them.

imagine the support from government
I'm sure our government (USA) wouldn't like it. Our government makes just as much, if not MORE money then the oil companies do from taxing Oil.

And if big oil have such power, why is renevables racing towards dominance picking up speed all the time.
You don't see cars being run entirely on renewables.


EDIT: As for why the hydrogen idea is on ice, look up how hard it is to store hydrogen on a car.

Not according to this man (which I've posted before). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU&feature=related

Darth_Yuthura
08-02-2008, 04:47 PM
Of course not.

It would work the same as how the hydrogen fuel cell idea died.

oil companies would either buy off the inventor or "get rid of" the inventor.

I hate to admit it, but that would be the most likely outcome. Despite how desirable or efficient a new source of energy could become. If it's not profitable, no one will want to invest in it.

There is a nuclear reactor called the fast breeder. It's a much more efficient powerplant than standard heavy-water reactors, but they are not as profitable. Because they cost about twice that of a standard reactor, the investment on capital outweighs the fact they can produce almost a hundred times as much energy with the same quantity of uranium. The same thing is true with almost any energy with a huge capital cost.

mur'phon
08-02-2008, 04:50 PM
As I've said, we've already had countless opportunities to stop using gas, but for some reason our government (and oil companies) never take any interest in them.

Please elaborate

I'm sure our government (USA) wouldn't like it. Our government makes just as much, if not MORE money then the oil companies do from taxing Oil.

And so do my gov't (the sheikhdom of Norway). However, a lot of countries aren't in that position, and a lot of politicans want to become known as the saviour of the world. Besides, you forgot about the non oil businesses looking for a tidy profitt from doing the saving.

You don't see cars being run entirely on renewables

*Looks out window, sees electric car* yes I do

youtube

Nice film, but I have a basic understanding of chemistry, and would love to see the chemistry behind it, as so far geting hydrogen from water has been rather energy demanding. Show me that, and you've got a believer.

whatthehell
08-02-2008, 04:55 PM
there is such thing as antimatter. when combined with normal matter, it converts, 100% effeciency, to energy. there is a place in i believe europe that can create it. the problem is its production. it takes a long time to create a few atoms of it and only a few atoms per billion of normal matter convert to anti matter. it really is a facinating concept

Darth_Yuthura
08-02-2008, 05:09 PM
there is such thing as antimatter. when combined with normal matter, it converts, 100% effeciency, to energy. there is a place in i believe europe that can create it. the problem is its production. it takes a long time to create a few atoms of it and only a few atoms per billion of normal matter convert to anti matter. it really is a facinating concept

Matter-anti-matter reactions are even more dangerous and far-fetched than fusion. In order to initiate and maintain a fusion reaction, more energy has to be invested than is returned. The heat from the reaction is so intense that it could not be allowed to come in contact with the reactor, itself.

When you start talking about anitmatter, the reaction would be more intense. less predictable, less understood, and less likely to be used before fusion is ever perfected. The conditions for both are extremely difficult to provide without the gravity or energy of a star.

Nedak
08-02-2008, 05:20 PM
Please elaborate.
What I'm saying is that we have had technology to run cars on something besides gasoline for years (example:Steve Meyers Hydrogen Fuel Cell). There is even an Air Powered Car in production, which is getting barely any media attention and it will only be sold in parts of the UK and India. If the USA Gov. were truly interested they would be putting a lot more effort into perfecting and producing these inventions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsSLsXIxO1I&feature=related

And so do my gov't (the sheikhdom of Norway). However, a lot of countries aren't in that position, and a lot of politicans want to become known as the saviour of the world. Besides, you forgot about the non oil businesses looking for a tidy profitt from doing the saving.

A lot of governments probably don't have the resources or technology to even try and make that work. I can't think of the last time a third world country has contributed an amazing invention for the entire world to use.



*Looks out window, sees electric car* yes I do
You're lucky then. In all of my years I've been in a car, and outside seeing cars, I've never once seen an electric car. I've seen hybrid cars that use gas and electricity, but never a fully electric car. If anybody drives them, it's probably a select few.



Nice film, but I have a basic understanding of chemistry, and would love to see the chemistry behind it, as so far geting hydrogen from water has been rather energy demanding. Show me that, and you've got a believer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

At the bottom you will notice there are issues with the fuel cell. However, I'm sure these could be fixed if large companies and governments would help fix them.

Rev7
08-02-2008, 05:37 PM
What would happen if a way to create energy so efficient was found that only several power plants across the entire world would to needed to produce power for the whole world, forever?
I personally think that would be a wonderful thing! But if you think of it from a certain point of view, it would not be that great of an idea if so quickly.
What would it do to mankind? Would it solve things, or make things worse?
Well, I think that it is a little give and take. 'Oil' is a business, and has workers. My guess would be a lot of workers. If something like this happened so quickly a lot of people would probably be laid off. Where do these people go for work, to provide for their families, to survive? I think that if something like this happened so quickly, it would make life much worse! But, if there is a way to introduce slower, I think that it could work. Of course, this is all just speculation. ;)

Totenkopf
08-03-2008, 01:54 AM
Don't believe that removing energy costs from people's financial burdens would make them any more altruistic. Governments either.

Darth_Yuthura
08-03-2008, 05:21 PM
Don't believe that removing energy costs from people's financial burdens would make them any more altruistic. Governments either.

The advent of the steam engine was one of, if not the most important revelations to globalization. The definition of that is making the world more accessible or a smaller place. Energy was the fuel behind the locomotive, automobile, and airplane. As fuel became more common and cheaper, human progress exploded across the globe. It wasn't until fairly recently that the availability of fuel has slowed this process.

Globalization is almost directly linked to the average person's quality of life, so if the price of energy continued to decrease, globalization would only be slowed by the development of technology. In recent years, the price of fuel has been the limiting factor in globalization.

True_Avery
08-03-2008, 08:59 PM
Alright, imagine if tommorow, mankind suddenly discovered some great answer to producing exponential amounts of clean, reliable energy? so efficient that the system of producing it could be reduced to the size of a small battery... And it would be able to replace all other forms of producing energy... Not that it matters 'how' in this discussion. Just, what would happen.
I hope that never happens for the same reason I hope things like cancers, diabetes, etc never get cured.

Humanity needs its limiting factors. Perfect energy would get rid of one of our largest limiting factors in our society, which would lead to mass expansion.

We don't need that. We are already starting to hit a population crisis, and by 2060 this world should be decently overpopulated with roughly 12 billion people. We cover a good portion of this planet and seem to show little interest in stopping.

If anything, we need more limiting factors in our society to calm our growth. We are going to build ourselves to death. Once this planet reaches its population cap for us, a lot of bad things are about to happen.

This isn't some "save the planet!" environmentalist rant. The planet can, and will always take care of itself with or without us. Its been hit by meteors multiple times for starters. This is a "pretend you care for the planet!" rant, because all this really amounts to is "save the humans!".

The more limiting factors we place on ourselves, the closer to we get to saving the human race. Because, honestly, this planet couldn't care less about the hair's width of a time we've been on it.

It would never happen.

Even if we had such technology I'm fairly certain companies wouldn't be selling them, since they can make much more money off other fuels, like oil.

Also, I doubt we would ever discover such energy, because nobody wants it to be found.
Oil companies will only be on top for so long.

And if we were to find the perfect energy source, it wouldn't stay quiet. And I doubt the inventor could be bought out, because he could make more by selling the perfect energy than he ever could with bribes.

And, like the electric car, it can be beaten down for a time but the public will eventually get a hold of it. They are now in the form of Hybrids, but they are a smarter choice than an Electric car anyway.

there is such thing as antimatter. when combined with normal matter, it converts, 100% effeciency, to energy. there is a place in i believe europe that can create it. the problem is its production. it takes a long time to create a few atoms of it and only a few atoms per billion of normal matter convert to anti matter. it really is a facinating concept
Anti-matter, for now, is a thing of fiction as far as being used as an energy source. It is anti-matter. Whenever it comes in contact with matter, the two destroy each other and release untold amounts of energy.

It is by definition the most powerful source of energy in the known universe. Being so, it is incredibly hard to make. Once made, it cannot come in contact with any form of matter what-so-ever or it will explode and be lost. It would have to be made, captured successfully in a vacuum, and then harnessed into some form of power.

But, before it is ever used as a power source it will be used as a weapon.

Don't believe that removing energy costs from people's financial burdens would make them any more altruistic. Governments either.
Maybe, but it makes them more content. Having a high number of content societies could lead to a more "peaceful" world in some ways. Its been working so far anyway.

Ctrl Alt Del
08-04-2008, 02:35 PM
Would it make some people break on finances? Yes. Shift the world order? Most certainly. Countries that are important due to any energy matters today could be meaningless quite fast if such energy was ever brought to us.

Nevertheless, the world revolves, time passes and that's progress. It wouldn't solve anyhing for us, though. In the capitalist society we live, one would always try to outsmart the other on the quest to have even more efficient energy and the cicle would continue.

The advent of the steam engine was one of, if not the most important revelations to globalization. The definition of that is making the world more accessible or a smaller place. Energy was the fuel behind the locomotive, automobile, and airplane. As fuel became more common and cheaper, human progress exploded across the globe.

And was that a good thing? Surely, if you can make use of it's benefits. But the bad side effects that also exploded on the Industrial Revolution you're talking about - such as masses poverty - are undeniable and persists this day and age.

Totenkopf
08-04-2008, 03:07 PM
Mass poverty would exist w/o the industrial revolution. Some of the most populous socieities have been largely agrarian for significant portions of their history.

Ctrl Alt Del
08-04-2008, 03:17 PM
Mass poverty would exist w/o the industrial revolution. Some of the most populous socieities have been largely agrarian for significant portions of their history.

Can I ask for examples? I could say China is be such a country, as it's mostly agrarian. What can't go unsaid though, is that the system implanted on the east side of the country just aggravated the poverty of their compatriots on the west.

As such, yes, poverty would exist independently of the Revolution, but that just made things worse.

Totenkopf
08-04-2008, 03:23 PM
India. Not so sure that IR made poverty worse so much as it concentrated it into cities. As a result, we're probably more aware of it b/c we see it more "up close and personal".

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2008, 11:50 PM
And was that a good thing? Surely, if you can make use of it's benefits. But the bad side effects that also exploded on the Industrial Revolution you're talking about - such as masses poverty - are undeniable and persists this day and age.

I would say globalization is a good thing because it makes life easier if we can conquer geography. What I mean by that is if we can replace walking with the locomotive, we can invest less effort for more benefit. Globalization has made our lives so much better and it's been growing as technology became available. Recent events have slowed and diminished its progress because fuel and energy are becoming the limiting factors now.

Automobiles were favored greatly because they were so much more convienient than trains or ships, but as fuel costs are rising, they are taking a back seat to mass transit. If the energy issue were solved, automobiles would forever eclipse public transit as the favored means of transportation. The reason for New York using mass transit was simply because it was not feasible for everyone to have cars in the compact urban environment.

Now that fuel costs are rising, there will be more cities like Portland switching to the most desirable form of transportation... which would be the cheapest and most efficient. I think that the prefect energy would keep this from happening in the US... and I'm all for mass transit taking over for crowded cites.

SW01
08-06-2008, 07:05 PM
I would think the United States government would kill to bring out this technology rather than conceal it! How many times has America, along with the rest of us in the developed Western nations, been nearly brought to its knees because of oil costs?

Even if some kind of corruption at the highest levels prevented America from taking on such an energy source, there would indeed be plenty of other nations ready to capitalise. Here in the UK, we are moving away from coal and oil, and towards the renewable energies and nuclear fission. The EU as a whole would be likely to take it on (not sure about your comment on Germany, Darth_Yuthura), and I'm certain the old Soviet bloc would love such an advantage.

How would it change the world? Whichever government implements it first would become the undisputed power in global politics.

Also, in response to Ctrl Alt Del's query, Britain is a prime example of poverty reduced by the industrial revolution. It was the rise of the working and middle classes, and lifted many who found new work as factory workers out of abject poverty as farm labourers.

Darth_Yuthura
08-06-2008, 07:17 PM
I would think the United States government would kill to bring out this technology rather than conceal it! How many times has America, along with the rest of us in the developed Western nations, been nearly brought to its knees because of oil costs?

Even if some kind of corruption at the highest levels prevented America from taking on such an energy source, there would indeed be plenty of other nations ready to capitalise. Here in the UK, we are moving away from coal and oil, and towards the renewable energies and nuclear fission. The EU as a whole would be likely to take it on (not sure about your comment on Germany, Darth_Yuthura), and I'm certain the old Soviet bloc would love such an advantage.

How would it change the world? Whichever government implements it first would become the undisputed power in global politics.

Also, in response to Ctrl Alt Del's query, Britain is a prime example of poverty reduced by the industrial revolution. It was the rise of the working and middle classes, and lifted many who found new work as factory workers out of abject poverty as farm labourers.

I don't think most innovation comes from governments, they come from private individuals or corporations. If a new energy emerges, it would not bode well for many corporations other than the ones who have it. If it's in a rival's best interest to restrain the technology, they would do what they could to stop it. It's in many people's best interests to have a sustainable source of energy, but those who have resources and money wouldn't mind selling out America if it helped them.

General Motors once made a huge past investment that would benefit the company for the short run, but would harm it once oil prices became too high. Although the company is suffering, the board members who made the choice reaped profits and then left the company to deal with the long term consequences... it doesn't matter to them anymore.

Everything in America revolves around money. Even a seemingly perfect energy may not be a desirable investment.

SW01
08-06-2008, 07:31 PM
I don't think most innovation comes from governments, they come from private individuals or corporations.

Indeed, but (many) governments have most clout in bringing about sweeping changes in areas such as energy supply. At least, large-scale energy supply is controlled at the government level in most countries.

If such a power source was found, the global bidding war would be...interesting...to say the least.

ForeverNight
08-07-2008, 10:28 AM
As I've said, we've already had countless opportunities to stop using gas, but for some reason our government (and oil companies) never take any interest in them.

I find it interesting that nobody has pointed this out before, but maybe, just maybe, it has to deal with the fact that Oil is currently be most efficient source of energy we have on hand. Nothing else is as efficient, nothing.

But, anyway... If we had a "perfect" source of energy... Well, if it was the small-battery like idea that Arc proposed, than I imagine that you wouldn't be buying the UNLIMITED version, but the LIMITED edition.

The battery-like-thing would likely have some limiting factor to it, if it could be found and reduced so that you need to purchase one every 3-5 years... the price of it could go down because the Power Companies would have designed it to do this and produce more, driving down cost.

So, you're not going to be paying EW's 1000USD for it, it'll probably be a chunk of change, but it will still provide a reoccuring profit for the Energy Companies who would then produce it because it yields... PROFIT.

Would War stop? Heck, no!

Would Poverty be eliminated? Nope.

Would the world suddenly become a safer place? Just like when the USSR fell, nope.

Would the world become a better place? More than likely.

Ray Jones
08-07-2008, 02:35 PM
To decrease pollution is more important than keeping the level of efficiency in the first place.

ForeverNight
08-07-2008, 02:49 PM
Prove to me on a large scale model that the Pollution emitted by a Gasoline Powered Car is The Most Damaging Pollution that we can easily fix and I'll agree that we should look into something else with more fervor. (We should always be working to improve stuff!)

It's like the Global Warming thing... I've yet to see a Large Scale Model that can prove that it's manmade CO2 doing it.. :giveup:

Darth_Yuthura
08-07-2008, 03:04 PM
I find it interesting that nobody has pointed this out before, but maybe, just maybe, it has to deal with the fact that Oil is currently be most efficient source of energy we have on hand. Nothing else is as efficient, nothing.


Oil has not been the most efficient source of energy... you have to define it before you make such a claim. It is not the most profitable energy in the US, nuclear could be even better. It is not at this time because all US nuclear reactors are riddled with financial flaws that caused wastes in funds and delays in construction.

If the US were to switch to nuclear energy in the same manner as Europe, it would be the most profitable energy in the long run. At the current time, coal would be the best choice, but its price is rising and will soon be eclipsed by nuclear and renewable energies.

Oil DOES have the advantage of being used on a small scale powerplant, such as a car engine. It however is much more limited than coal, so we have to transition away from it eventually. The sooner we do, the easier the transition. Cars only run on gasoline, but an electric vehicle can essentially use any energy.

Prove to me on a large scale model that the Pollution emitted by a Gasoline Powered Car is The Most Damaging Pollution that we can easily fix and I'll agree that we should look into something else with more fervor. (We should always be working to improve stuff!)

It's like the Global Warming thing... I've yet to see a Large Scale Model that can prove that it's manmade CO2 doing it.. :giveup:

Electric motors are always more efficient than gasoline engines. That's why hybrid vehicles are so efficient. Large scale power plants are designed to generate the maximum amount of energy on the lowest amount of fuel... they are virtually always the most efficient powerplants there are. If a car uses electricity... even if it's just as efficient as the powerplant, you can at least choose where you restrict pollution. Cars always pollute their surroundings, they can't avoid that.

Ray Jones
08-07-2008, 03:49 PM
Prove to me on a large scale model that the Pollution emitted by a Gasoline Powered Car is The Most Damaging Pollution that we can easily fix and I'll agree that we should look into something else with more fervor.Why? If there was a fuel or energy source creating significantly less pollution, it can't be wrong to start reducing pollution there, can it?

It's like the Global Warming thing... I've yet to see a Large Scale Model that can prove that it's manmade CO2 doing it..I don't need large scale models to understand that the less pollution I cause the better.

Darth_Yuthura
08-07-2008, 04:09 PM
Why? If there was a fuel or energy source creating significantly less pollution, it can't be wrong to start reducing pollution there, can it?

I don't need large scale models to understand that the less pollution I cause the better.

Most would opt for less pollution if it could be avoided. However, pollution has almost no bearing to a CEO of a corporation. The only reason a corporation would pay to reduce pollution is to avoid lawsuits.

As much as saving the planet should matter to a CEO, it wouldn't matter if 99% of the world was contaminated if he could afford to live on that 1%. The only thing that would end pollution is if the clean energy is the better deal. Pollution doesn't matter to those with power unless it directly impacts them... and they can pay to avoid it.

It also gets down to the diffusion of responsibility. If you knew your acts would make all the difference, you'd be more likely to act. If you represent only 1/300,000,000 of the US, would you believe that your efforts would show? Many would say 'yes,' but they often behave as if they mean 'no.'

Ray Jones
08-07-2008, 04:15 PM
As far as I know not only CEOs drive cars.

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-07-2008, 04:28 PM
I think I'm thinking what the rest of you are thinking, mainly: super vibrator.

Darth_Yuthura
08-08-2008, 03:30 AM
As far as I know not only CEOs drive cars.

As far as I know, not many middle class Americans fly on private jets. I don't know if this is directed at my post, but upper class citizens don't give a **** about the environment if it doesn't impact them. Because CEO's don't have to live in the polluted areas of their companies, it doesn't influence them if their factories in South Korea poison everything around them. Pollution only affects corporations if their lands are spoiled for business or through lawsuits. Other than that... pollution doesn't matter to CEO's.

Ray Jones
08-08-2008, 04:53 AM
Pollution does not stop at some border or company fences. Also, when we talk about cars and their pollution, we're practically talking about "all around the planet", because theyld mainly pollute the air.

And why should you not care about how you can reduce pollution just because some CEO or rich man does not?

Darth_Yuthura
08-10-2008, 06:47 PM
Pollution does not stop at some border or company fences. Also, when we talk about cars and their pollution, we're practically talking about "all around the planet", because theyld mainly pollute the air.

And why should you not care about how you can reduce pollution just because some CEO or rich man does not?

I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm just stating that we likely won't.

The US has the best air quality in the world, but that only comes because other locations that make our manufactured goods take the greatest impact. There are many cities in China filled with factories that make goods that the rest of the world demands.

The issue on pollution from factories in America is technically solved by manufacturing elsewhere. However, because the regulations on pollution in China are lower than in the US, they suffer the greatest impact because we don't manufacture most of our own goods in America. To a CEO of a manufacturing corporation, the problem is solved. To the average American, the problem is also solved.

The most dangerous forms of pollution are not those we directly cause ourselves; they're what we don't know about that originate in China, India, and Korea.