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

171–180 of 213 posts

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#171

Post by ultrarunner »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #166
jcranmer wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, espe…

There's a huge difference between controlling what people do on their own land, and controlling how people affect the broader ecosystem. Burning oil or gas and affecting the atmosphere for everyone is a much larger-scale issue than a local wetland. (And if you're told you can't turn a swamp into a field, for example, you also ought to get paid for effectively having to maintain a public resource.)

What I don't understand is how that isn't a taking.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#172

Post by mywittyname »

jandrese wrote: post #85
Reason077 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”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-...

Coal use has collapsed in the US too entirely for economic reasons, but it doesn't stop the politicians from making ads about how liberals are coming for your jobs because they hate your way of life and airing them constantly in rural areas.

The Right was smart to latch onto coal. It will never come back, so they can complain about it forever. We all know that they love to sell nostalgia.

And their target demographic isn't too interested in facts, so they'll never learn the reality that it was deregulation lead to a natural gas boom, which lead to the free market dealing the death blow to coal. So they can keep selling evil job killing regulations as the reason for the decline of everything great in this country.

Renewables get the headlines, but those coal plants are mostly being replaced with natural gas ones. The media reports "renewables overtake coal for the first time," which gives the false impression that solar and wind are displacing coal. But that's not what's really happening, which is that those former coal plants now burn natural gas because it's cheaper.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#173

Post by makomk »

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?

So it takes a whole bunch of resources that could be used to produce other things and uses them to produce chimney scrubbers, collection ponds, etc. Not only people's time, but also a bunch of raw materials, equipment, etc, all of which then cannot be used for things other than emissions compliance.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#174

Post by aaron695 »

When we/you choose lockdown this is what you choose.

And it's only just beginning.

This is going to get boring real quick, complaints should have been in April or even January.

Environment/disability/healthcare will all be cut and stay cut for years no mater who is in charge.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#175

Post by makomk »

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…

Not only that, as the article point out big companies like Exxon actually supported these methane restrictions - which just so happen to be much harder for their smaller competitors to comply with than the megacorps, meaning that the regulations will reduce competition. Now, of course Exxon insist that they're just doing this because they want to be green, but they not exactly going to come out and say that they like it because they expect it'll increase their profits are they?

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#176

Post by jcranmer »

trothamel wrote: post #168
jcranmer wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, espe…

They didn't pay him for the reduced value of his land, did he? I think that's a lot of the problem with these regulations - the government requires people to abide by them, but does not compensate for them.

The wetlands predated his ownership of the land, and I think the regulations also predated that as well too.

Actually, the local village did offer to buy all the wetlands and a bit more [for road access] to turn into parkland, but my grandparents turned the offer down.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#177

Post by [deleted] »

trothamel wrote: post #168
jcranmer wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, espe…

They didn't pay him for the reduced value of his land, did he? I think that's a lot of the problem with these regulations - the government requires people to abide by them, but does not compensate for them.

[deleted]

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#178

Post by jandrese »

makomk wrote: post #173
brewdad wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So it takes a whole bunch of resources that could be used to produce other things and uses them to produce chimney scrubbers, collection ponds, etc. Not only people's time, but also a bunch of raw materials, equipment, etc, all of which then cannot be used for things other than emissions compliance.

You either pay for the cost up front or down the road when that environmental contamination catches up to you.

The EPA is rightfully tired of cleaning up industry messes and would much prefer that the pollution not happen in the first place. It's much easier and cheaper to clean up that way.

So these regulations are all about preventing companies from passing on the costs of cleanup to the general public. One way or another you're paying for it, and it's much less expensive in almost every case if you pay for it up front. The only problem is that the free market doesn't price in externalities unless you force it to (via regulation) so the pollute now and let the public clean it up later approach is always going to win in an unregulated market.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#179

Post by busterarm »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #77
busterarm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not even close to the Republican mainstream now though. The "Christian Right" is a relic that died during the first Dubya administration. It's nothing more than a boogeyman for progressives now.

That doesn't seem right. All we hear about is the evangelical support of Trump is unwavering even though he personally violates their expectations of behavior. They see him rewarding them in terms of laws, federal judges, supporting their desires and also the perhaps more complicated support for feeling of white people's power and privilege being under siege.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/ma...

It was pronounced dead loads of times between '08 & '16 and this is just one.

You see it mentioned, because as I previously said it's a boogeyman used to scare us liberals. You're being manipulated.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#180

Post by dang »

akiselev wrote: post #170
dang wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24111740 .

Just curious, why? Is it a tactic to quarantine content that has potential to start flame wars from other content?

Basically yes.
Post reply on HN