EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas • Hacker News Board

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#111

Post by jcranmer » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

spaetzleesser wrote: post #2

It’s very hard to understand why the current administration has such an urge to roll back environmental regulations. I grew up in a time when rivers were red or green depending on what type of leather the factory upstream was processing at the time. The only fish you could see were dead. Breathing in cities was hard. Environmental regulation is a big success story that improved the lives of countless people while com…

My grandfather grew up on a farm and, late in life, retired to a farm. Well, a large portion of the property was a swamp, and if he had his way, he would have tiled that swamp, drained it, and grown corn. But the EPA wouldn't let him, since it was destroying wetlands. So he fulminated against the EPA for not letting him do what he wanted with his land.

And that's why there's a lot of people who hate regulations, especially environmental regulations. They have a very concrete harm from the regulations that they can see (they can't do certain actions), and the benefits are not so easily noticed. Labor regulations, where the benefits are much more easily visible and relatable are likely to have higher support, although I suspect that a large rural constituency wouldn't mind seeing child labor laws repealed.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#112

Post by sonotathrowaway » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

ianleeclark wrote: post #99

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll reply to this since I cannot reply to the sibling comment - but Medicare for all is not an actually popular or feasible idea. The polls that show support for Medicare for all have wording you the effect of “would you like free healthcare?”. Support quickly drops once polls start asking about the real trade offs that would have to be made in order to actually afford this change in healthcare, and the tax hikes ne…

> tax hikes needed to make it work. Crazy how when you word polls to indicate that taxes would be "hiked," that people get spooked. Never mind how we'd save money overall. > Trying to pass off m4a as a feasible plan isn’t real This is the real tragedy of the Bernie campaign. It wasn't feasible because it'd be spiked by Democrats in addition to Republicans. It's really heart-rending. You've got an entire voting base w…

See I guess that’s the exact reason I’m not a sanders supporter. I care about outcomes and couldn’t care less about the strategies used to get there. I see a public option as feasible, cost effective, minimally disruptive, and effective. I don’t fantasize about a 40 trillion dollar plan that would upend the largest American industry with uncertain effects. I’m especially not fantasizing about this effort being led by a man who spent his entire career in politics yet couldn’t manage to get a single large piece of legislation passed, and who actively burned his ties to the party he emigrated to because their politics weren’t radical enough.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#113

Post by rsynnott » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

spaetzleesser wrote: post #2

It’s very hard to understand why the current administration has such an urge to roll back environmental regulations. I grew up in a time when rivers were red or green depending on what type of leather the factory upstream was processing at the time. The only fish you could see were dead. Breathing in cities was hard. Environmental regulation is a big success story that improved the lives of countless people while com…

I wonder are demographics a factor, here. While I'm not sure about the US, in this part of the world the worst visible impacts of pollution peaked in the 50s to early 60s (the Great Smog of London, which killed 4,000 people at the very least and likely over 10,000, was in 1952, for instance). Most voters today probably haven't seen significant personal impact from pollution, so it might not be as frightening.

That said, it also does seem like this narrative of "regulation is ruining everything", as a sort of objection to regulation as a concept without reference to what the regulation is regulation, has seen an uptick recently, between Trumpism and Brexit.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#114

Post by rayiner » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

spaetzleesser wrote: post #2

It’s very hard to understand why the current administration has such an urge to roll back environmental regulations. I grew up in a time when rivers were red or green depending on what type of leather the factory upstream was processing at the time. The only fish you could see were dead. Breathing in cities was hard. Environmental regulation is a big success story that improved the lives of countless people while com…

To begin let me caveat that I'm a huge proponent of environmental regulation. That said, most of the regulations Trump is rolling back aren't longstanding ones that produced the cleanups you observed. They're ones the Obama administration rushed through in the last year or two of his presidency, which often had quite sweeping effects or federalized things that had previously been regulated at the state level.

These methane regulations are a good example. Every state that has oil & gas drilling already regulates methane emissions as part of the necessary permits. The Obama EPA enacted a rule to federalize those standards that took effect in March of 2016. It's a duplicative rule that's been operative for about five minutes.

I like Obama a lot, but on the environmental front, he was willing to spend zero political capital to achieve consensus on environmental reforms. To the contrary, he won reelection on a pro-coal and pro-fracking platform! Here is Obama criticizing Romney for standing in front of a coal plant (as Governor) and saying "this plant kills": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRmlxBDjfE. Here is Obama talking about the how great fracking is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uVGY3sIBsA. He somehow found environmental Jesus around 2015 and rushed through a bunch of regulations at the last minute. But, as such, his successor is perfectly entitled to reverse them just as quickly and easily.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#115

Post by LatteLazy » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #6

vkou wrote: post #3

Edit: I stand corrected.

Biden's website lists as his plan: "Requiring aggressive methane pollution limits for new and existing oil and gas operations." https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/

I read the first half and it seems very weak to me. The only actual climate point is unspecified executive orders and a plan to get carbon neutral by 2050 (about 40 years too late and we'll after the end of his 5th term assuming he does that well).

After that, it's road and bridge building and protecting communities of colour.

What will Democrats (this needs to come from Congress, the presidency is basically powerless to make real change here) actually do?

(edit, finished reading, just more about unspecified investment, workers rights, and unmatched American innovation).

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#116

Post by mledu » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #103

vkou wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The voters, for the most part, are treated as useful idiots [1]. The real constituents are the business community, which will make or break your candidacy, who not only vote, but more importantly, fund candidates in alignment their own self-interest. Voting is actually the least effective means of democratic change (It is more effective then sitting at home, and complaining.) The second least effective means of democ…

Money (generally) doesn't buy elections.[1][2] [1] https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-el... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter

Yes correlation != causation. As vkou noted, it's who gets to pick the candidates that matters, which leaves us to pick between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#117

Post by rsynnott » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

Reason077 wrote: post #79

jandrese wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those long term costs will be a political disadvantage for liberals, as they will give the GOP plenty of talking points about how they want to take away good honest coal mining jobs. This is the long game in action. Force liberals to make the hard decisions to save the planet, then completely own them with propaganda about those decisions. It's a winning strategy. Not only in the US, but across most of the Anglo sphe…

”Not only in the US, but across most of the Anglo sphere.” Not in the UK. Coal use has plummeted by 84% in 5 years (84 million tonnes in 2014 to 8 million tonnes in 2019), while renewable energy has been hugely expanded. All under “right wing” (Conservative) governments. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/09/is-this-...

While this specific one doesn't work in the UK, there is a wider thread of "regulation bad" in right-wing British politics; it was a major factor in the Brexit vote.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#118

Post by ianleeclark » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #96

ianleeclark wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, let's ignore this one issue that has majority acceptance across political lines and upwards of 70% Democrat approval because I've got a grudge against it. You can do what you want, throwaway account. When you get Matt Gaetz in 2024 let me know how it feels. 4 years of more means testing will get you there real quick.

I agree that M4A should be adopted, but disagree that not adopting it is hurting Biden. He's doing spectacularly in both state polls and national polls. Back in Spring this could have been ignored, but the election is less than 3 months away now and he has managed to not just retain his lead, but increase it. There's no reason to rock that boat now with major policy adoptions, in my opinion. For what it's worth, if D…

> Not doing that would actually cost him the 2024 election.

The man has stated he has no interest in running again afterwards. If we're, for whatever reason, taking what he says as truth, then he doesn't need that.

Furthermore, and this is the real important part, the man doesn't base his power upon accountability to the electorate. His base of power showed it's strengrh prior to Super Tuesday. He's riding on the democratic base and whatever reaction there is to Trump, but he's in no way accountable to the electorate.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#119

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #88

spaetzleesser wrote: post #2

It’s very hard to understand why the current administration has such an urge to roll back environmental regulations. I grew up in a time when rivers were red or green depending on what type of leather the factory upstream was processing at the time. The only fish you could see were dead. Breathing in cities was hard. Environmental regulation is a big success story that improved the lives of countless people while com…

It's not that hard. Some regulations have low cost and high benefit. They should be kept. Others have high cost and low benefit. They should be removed or reformed.

[deleted]

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#120

Post by rsynnott » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

jbay808 wrote: post #93

roland35 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, pollution regulation is a classic example of something which has a huge cost on one group (business) and a minor benefit to a large group (everyone else), but the minority is much more motivated. It is an unfortunate byproduct of our government with special interests.

Doesn't this imply that the regulation could never have been passed in the first place?

The major anti-pollution regulations were largely passed against a background of dead and extremely sick people, which concentrated the public's mind. Death and injury from pollution is now greatly reduced and less visible where it does occur, and it's less on peoples' minds, so there's a risk of backsliding.