Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 213 posts

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#141

Post by 12xo »

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?

The Right is dominated in media silos. AM radio is almost exclusively right wing talk these days. FoxNews is 100% propaganda and almost all fiction. Avg people who support the GOP are encrusted inside this silo. They do not listen, watch, read or see any objective news. Its 100% partisan political propaganda. So getting the message through isnt possible. Its about as biased as anything in history. But they'll tell you that they're oppressed by the Liberal Media... Facts be damned.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#142

Post by mrguyorama »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #81
jfengel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the outcome I would prefer isn't going to come anywhere near renewing my confidence. If it happens at all, it will only because a catastrophe made the incumbent's incompetence affect some of his supporters directly -- many of whom will still, in fact, remain supporters. Even before that, enormous numbers of people were harmed, but they weren't among his supporters. Indeed, for them, the negative outcomes were th…

November will not fix what's wrong, it will begin to fix what's wrong.

It will prevent further backsliding. It would take 20 years or more of significant effort to undo all the damage caused. Look at the ramifications of other "bad" presidents.

This comment works for both sides of the political game, even though I only believe it works for one

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#143

Post by mrlala »

rayiner wrote: post #133
vanusa wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it's quite easy to understand. It all comes down to their ideology, which in a nutshell comes down to: maximizing profits and (perceived) short-term gains for its core constituency (i.e. business elites) - and where that's not quite possible, at least keep the illusion of an every-expanding, anything goes "free market" system chugging along for another year or two -- at the expense of everyone and everything…

This is an utterly specious claim that overlooks the fact that the oil and gas industry is highly competitive and sells commodities. As a result, Exxon, for example, has a net profit margin well under 10%: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/XOM/exxon/profit-m... . (Compare Google at 20%+ https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/prof... ) Because of commodification and competition, almost all cos…

Eh, you basically just verified the point in my opinion..

You try to skirt around the issue saying the profits are maybe being passed down the consumer more than one thinks, ok valid. But the point still remains that everything that is being done is to maximize short term profits / cut short term consumer costs.

>policies that make oil and gas products cheaper popular with voters not just popular with "business elites."

Well.. so what? Of course 95% of people would generally say "MAKE THINGS CHEAPER!" That doesn't mean it should be done.

Besides, you are also making it sound like more people would rather have cheaper gas than a long-sustainable environment. Not so sure you are right on that one.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#144

Post by [deleted] »

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #138
ianleeclark wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sanders actually played fast & dumb about the m4a numbers, then attacked warren when she tried putting actual numbers to the plan and tried to make it feasible. And the plan would actually cost around 40 trillion over a decade to implement, sorry if you were misled. And didn’t sanders lose this primary worse than his first? Don’t blame us for whatever conservative you want to slot into the president slot next, blame…

[deleted]

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#145

Post by rayiner »

mrlala wrote: post #143
rayiner wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an utterly specious claim that overlooks the fact that the oil and gas industry is highly competitive and sells commodities. As a result, Exxon, for example, has a net profit margin well under 10%: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/XOM/exxon/profit-m... . (Compare Google at 20%+ https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/prof... ) Because of commodification and competition, almost all cos…

Eh, you basically just verified the point in my opinion.. You try to skirt around the issue saying the profits are maybe being passed down the consumer more than one thinks, ok valid. But the point still remains that everything that is being done is to maximize short term profits / cut short term consumer costs. >policies that make oil and gas products cheaper popular with voters not just popular with "business elite…

You linked profits to "short-term gains for its core constituency (i.e. business elites." The notion that voters might be thinking in a short-term way, preferring lower energy costs and lower unemployment in the short term to more sustainable energy policies in the long term, I would agree with that, but I think that's a different argument than what can be fairly derived from your post.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#146

Post by mrguyorama »

yalogin wrote: post #55

Not trying to make a political statement here but more about people and what they care about in general. Its amazing to me that trump's support is still at 40-45% in the country. The people living in the same country can see things unfolding in front of their eyes and make completely different decisions on them is fascinating to me. When I talk to my friends who are staunch trump supporters, they give me some fox new…

Don't forget the people who vote for Trump because he "Supports the troops"

Despite being Mr Bone Spurs Despite making fun of a gold star family Despite bounties on american heads Despite not improving the VA Despite the pentagon being a shitshow from Trump not filling lots of administrative positions and putting incompetent people in charge and even those people don't believe in him and try to softball the shit he is causing Despite that covid death ship that the navy pretended wasn't happening

But yeah, "Blah blah supports Troops", whatever that means

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#147

Post by vorpalhex »

tehjoker wrote: post #129
nicetryguy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Violence including riots and political assassinations have massively decreased from the 1960s and 1970s and overall life satisfaction has increased. I realize a revolutionary tone is in the current zeitgeist but it's unlikely to persist if Biden wins. Bernie's hilariously one sided defeat is perhaps the best indicator that most people don't agree with a radical future for the US.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#148

Post by enraged_camel »

ianleeclark wrote: post #118
enraged_camel wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dem…

I don't recall Biden ever making a promise to not seek re-election. I remember him expressing the idea, but mostly within the context of addressing criticisms that he's pretty old. He never committed to it, however.

I cannot think of a single President in recent history who actually refused to run for re-election. Can you?

Regardless of whether he seeks a second term, I don't think he would sabotage the Democratic Party by refusing to sign an M4A bill, if one is put in front of him.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#149

Post by ianleeclark »

enraged_camel wrote: post #148
ianleeclark wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dem…

I don't recall Biden ever making a promise to not seek re-election. I remember him expressing the idea, but mostly within the context of addressing criticisms that he's pretty old. He never committed to it, however. I cannot think of a single President in recent history who actually refused to run for re-election. Can you? Regardless of whether he seeks a second term, I don't think he would sabotage the Democratic Pa…

> I don't think he would sabotage the Democratic Party by refusing to sign an M4A bill, if one is put in front of him.

He wouldn't need to, they'd never put one forward. Just like card check.

Post reply on HN