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

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#121

Post by vkou » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:15 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

Money doesn't decide elections, money picks the candidates that run for elections.

There's also the tried-and-true strategy of paying off both candidates, so that regardless who wins, they'll be beholden to you.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#122

Post by michaelmrose » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #43

zentiggr wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen someone's opinion basically summarized as "a lot of these [Trump / republican] supporters don't really reason through anything political beyond "fuck liberals". As long as it opposes the damn liberals and whatever they want, it's all good, no matter how illogical, self-harming, or clueless in any other regard.

When someone summarizes their political rivals' positions as "they're just nasty people who hate me and want to oppose anything I like", I don't think you should put a tremendous amount of stock in that.

This would be an easier argument to make if one side wasn't making an issue out of wearing masks, fighting for their right to spread a deadly disease to others, and in some cases actually attacking people for asking them to wear masks.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#123

Post by bnjms » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:17 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.

To those pointing out problems with this position I’d say. The real issue is that no politicians even attempt to take this position. We lack a worthwhile Conservative party.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#124

Post by brewdad » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #82

ngngngng wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok Mr. Sanders. I meant like literally. Where does the money that is spent meeting environmental regulations go? The money is not just being burnt up. It's going to a different segment of the economy, I'm just not versed in what that means or looks like.

Oh, you meant the environmental regulation money? I misread your question, I thought you were talking about the money saved by the oil and gas companies when they removed said regulation. Anyway, that money is generally spent on equipment and processes to clean up after whatever the company is doing. Collection pods for contaminated water. Scrubbers on chimneys. Direct pay to inspectors to come out and make sure you…

So it creates jobs? Someone has to build those collection ponds. Those chimney scrubbers don't just grow in the forest.

Why can't Democrats get that message across?

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#125

Post by ianleeclark » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #112

ianleeclark wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yeah, instead of all that fantasizing, you're instead fantasizing a world wherein 40 trillion was the quoted number.

Again, when Tucker Carlson is the president, think long and hard about this moment.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#126

Post by InitialLastName » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

scarecrowbob wrote: post #72

enraged_camel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is the DNC doing to make Trump get re-elected?

If the last election was a referendum on establishment versus anti-establishment candidates, and if that same sentiment extends to this next election, then it seems like running an establishment candidate is a dangerous thing. To be clear, I -personally- think Trump is very much part of the "esablishment" (whatever that might mean), and I am also open to either of those premises being false... but I can certainly how…

6 out of the last 7 people to be elected US president ran under the "outsider" banner, usually (wasn't alive for the earliest ones, so not entirely clear on the messaging) against someone they could coherently paint as an "insider".

It's not just the last election, is what I'm saying.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#127

Post by tehjoker » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:20 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/

Biden's campaign promise to donors is "Nothing will fundamentally change." It is not very likely that what he does in power will have very much to do with the campaign rhetoric.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#128

Post by klyrs » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:22 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #43

zentiggr wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen someone's opinion basically summarized as "a lot of these [Trump / republican] supporters don't really reason through anything political beyond "fuck liberals". As long as it opposes the damn liberals and whatever they want, it's all good, no matter how illogical, self-harming, or clueless in any other regard.

When someone summarizes their political rivals' positions as "they're just nasty people who hate me and want to oppose anything I like", I don't think you should put a tremendous amount of stock in that.

I dunno. McConnell and Cruz are very proud of their obstructionism. Democrats continue to reach across the aisle, and for what? That doesn't get reciprocated anymore.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#129

Post by tehjoker » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

nicetryguy wrote: post #27

toomuchtodo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appreciate your efforts, we have lots of work left to do as a nation. Don't give up, every election cycle the demographics shift even further [1] [2] due to younger cohorts aging into voting rights and older cohorts aging out. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/a-wider-par... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-vi...

I am far from giving up, but, i'm also licking my wounds at the moment. Following politics right now is thoroughly disheartening; it does nothing to help my day to day, nor does it really affect it.

Get rested and get ready, under either Trump or Biden, the level of unrest and discontent will be much higher than it was. We will win eventually, but it will look like a slow incremental climb with sudden set backs, followed by bursts of energy and further set backs and crises, until suddenly and shockingly we take power. That's how it always goes.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#130

Post by jandrese » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

brewdad wrote: post #124

jandrese wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, you meant the environmental regulation money? I misread your question, I thought you were talking about the money saved by the oil and gas companies when they removed said regulation. Anyway, that money is generally spent on equipment and processes to clean up after whatever the company is doing. Collection pods for contaminated water. Scrubbers on chimneys. Direct pay to inspectors to come out and make sure you…

So it creates jobs? Someone has to build those collection ponds. Those chimney scrubbers don't just grow in the forest. Why can't Democrats get that message across?

For some strange reason Fox News and AM Talk Radio never mention that part. So the message never reaches the base. The only people who would mention it are the untrustworthy lieberal media.