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

101–110 of 213 posts

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#101

Post by glitcher »

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.

That takes care of all the low hanging fruit, then the real work begins. High cost and high benefit regulations are where it starts to get significantly more difficult to find the right balance. I would argue that if this balance doesn't at least lean towards the progress of long term environmental goals, then it is the wrong balance.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#102

Post by specialist »

scelerat wrote: post #95
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…

The only thing that makes sense to me is that these politicians believe they are living in the end times. Whether that's theological end times, environmental end times, or political end times is up for debate, but nothing they do seems to have any kind of sustainability to it. They expect to be dead or out of power soon and are squeezing every last drop while they still can.

James Watt, Reagan's Sec of the Interior, was pretty explicit about this belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt

Given Watt's public pillorying, methinks the others learned to keep their apocalyptic beliefs on the down low. Mostly.

I really wish people on the "left" would learn that when people voice such beliefs to believe them, that they're not joking.

Edit: Oops. Just saw natch's reply. Sorry for dupe.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#103

Post by nickff »

vkou wrote: post #97
nickff wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The demographics of voting are not so clear-cut (though income is correlated with votes), and the bigger gap is really between male and female voters.[1] There is also abundant evidence that people do not vote in their economic self-interest.[2] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-yo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter

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

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#104

Post by LatteLazy »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #7

I suggest changing the headline to "outgoing administration continues to sabotage government for next administration as popularity continues to decline during incompetent response to viral pandemic". Another example of something that was so important they waited until less than 3 months before the election to do it. It hardly needs saying, but this is devastatingly bad environmental and climate policy.

Before everyone knew he'd lose until he won.

But this time everyone knows he will lose...

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#105

Post by mistrial9 »

outworlder wrote: post #20
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 very hard to understand why the current administration has such an urge to roll back environmental regulations. No, it's very easy. Environmental regulations cost money. Lots of money. It's much more profitable to keep these externalities.

tragically, markets have a way to settle, such that costs rise to match cash flows.. so the easy (and true) accusation "It's much more profitable to keep these externalities" is part of the story.. profit is sometimes over decades with low margins and upfront investment (coal) .. telling people that the coal barons are simply paying their long term loans and legally-mandated retirement benefits, is not as appealing to outrage the public..

I agree that it is apparently a bonding exercise among certain capital-crowds to dismantle and mock environmental protections. The real world works like that.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#106

Post by Press2forEN »

vanusa wrote: post #57
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…

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…

You're going to have to do a better job at steel-manning their argument before you can even hope to engage them on this issue.

Besides, post-2016 it appears the business elites have switched sides.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#108

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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.

That would be wonderful. But it's harder than you think.

For regulations that have low cost and high benefit, the costs are often borne by few people, but the benefits are spread among many. Those who bear the costs scream loudly; those who reap the benefits may be mildly grateful. And those who bear the costs try very hard to make this regulation look like it is high-cost and low-benefit.

And the same is true in reverse for regulations that are high-cost and low-benefit. Those who receive the benefit try very hard (and very loudly) to make it seem that the regulation is low-cost and high-benefit.

This can make it hard to determine which kind of regulation is which, even if you genuinely want to. But regulations are political, and politicians care about votes, not necessarily about costs and benefits. As long as the narrow interests care deeply (and vote accordingly), the politicians are not likely to care about the wider interests.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#109

Post by ianleeclark »

07t15 wrote: post #98
ianleeclark wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But is it government’s role solely to boost oil company profits? Or should they consider these against long-term costs incurred by everyone? We don't live in a world where we get to speculate on what the intended role of government ought to be.

Don't we live in the world where we're free to speculate on pretty much anything?

Sure, but if we're in a thread dealing with the real-life repercussions of keeping our heads in the clouds it feels a little gross.

Re: EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas

#110

Post by specialist »

hcurtiss wrote: post #63
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'm not sure how old you are, but it's been a very long time since that was true. You're right that the Clean Water Act was as a big success, but those successes were mostly realized decades ago. At some point, the cost of ever-more stringent environmental regulation outweighs the benefit. In many contexts (e.g., air regulation), there are strong arguments that we are at that point. That is, the cost of incrementally…

What do you think of PFAS and other "forever chemicals" contaminating many watersheds?
Post reply on HN