5 ms·

I think it's because in the U.S absolutely anyone can tie up this stuff in the court systems for years. There are a lot of environmentalists who have been work

I think it's because in the U.S absolutely anyone can tie up this stuff in the court systems for years. There are a lot of environmentalists who have been working overtime to stop this thing. For example: https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/10/24/high-speed-rail-lawsuit/ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/10/24/high-speed-rail-l... . There are seven environmental lawsuits against this thing. How much do you think the legal bills are? There will likely be many more. Edit: There are a couple of regularly glitchy things about how American government works. They are: #1 : Public Employees Unions who negotiate with themselves for sweet pension deals. #2 : Suits against various government agencies by individuals that wind up being paid for by taxpayers. For example, school districts getting sued for something a janitor did and then taxpayers having to pay for it as if they were a private business and the taxpayer is the owner. #3 : Environmental lawsuits to stop government infrastructure projects.

smsm42 7y ago
> as if they were a private business and the taxpayer is the owner. Theoretically that's the case. Practically, the taxpayer ends up owning the downsides, and the government nomenklatura ends up owning the upsides. If you have stock in the company that does that, you can sell. If you have government like that, you can vote for another government, but somehow people never do.
chongli 7y ago
Are these environmental lawsuits really about protecting the environment (fighting climate change) or are they NIMBY lawsuits taking advantage of environmental laws/ordinances? In general, I would expect environmentalists to be among the major proponents of high speed rail, with the goal of getting more cars off the freeways. This calls to mind the Faculty of Environment at my university, whose primary focus is on the urban planning degree program. Urban planning as a rule seems to be all about politics, stakeholders, and NIMBYism; not so much about fighting climate change.
- briandear 7y ago
  > Are these environmental lawsuits really about protecting the environment (fighting climate change) “Protecting the environment” isn’t “fighting climate change.” Regardless of one’s position on the effects of CO2, that’s like suggesting that ensuring health should be entirely about how to prevent influenza. Protecting the environment includes protecting habit, stopping (actual, toxic) pollution. Climate change isn’t the end-all be-all of environmentalism. Climate change is being used at an almost religious level to justify pretty much anything climate activists deem necessary — regardless of any unintended (or subversively intended) consequences. Environmentalism doesn’t have to also mean “obsession with climate.” Some of us care deeply about the environment but also don’t have the audacity to think that the climate is changing because of humans. The climate has been changing for 4+ billion years. Of course, downvote away. Heresy is expected to be punished here. It is important that the point was made: caring about the environment can be independent of the climate change gospel.
  - zenexer 7y ago
    It can, but there’s a point of diminishing returns. There’s little point in protecting an ecosystem if it isn’t going to exist in a decade or two anyway. A big construction project might have a more tangible short-term impact, but if that excuse is used in every project that’s likely to have a strong positive impact on climate change, we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course, nothing is every black-and-white; destroying countless local ecosystems is a high cost, and it’s difficult to measure whether it’s worth that cost. How many ecosystems will be saved as a result? From any single project, probably none. From all the projects combined, maybe a lot. It’s along the lines of, “nobody else is trying to prevent calamity X, so calamity X is inevitable, and I shouldn’t try to stop it if the cost is calamity Y, where calamity Y is a more localized version of calamity X.” Well, calamity X is going to bring about calamity Y anyway if everyone has that mindset. It reminds me of the Trolley Problem [1], except the “do nothing” outcome is a long way off, and the “do something” outcome happens immediately, thereby skewing the choices. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
    - grawprog 7y ago
atomi 7y ago
On the other hand funding for the high speed rail is frequently used as a political football. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/02/19/feds-cancel-high-speed-rail-grant-return-billions-california/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/02/19/feds-cancel-hig...
webninja 7y ago
Maybe courts need to move faster?

smsm42 7y ago

> as if they were a private business and the taxpayer is the owner. Theoretically that's the case. Practically, the taxpayer ends up owning the downsides, and the government nomenklatura ends up owning the upsides. If you have stock in the company that does that, you can sell. If you have government like that, you can vote for another government, but somehow people never do.

chongli 7y ago

Are these environmental lawsuits really about protecting the environment (fighting climate change) or are they NIMBY lawsuits taking advantage of environmental laws/ordinances? In general, I would expect environmentalists to be among the major proponents of high speed rail, with the goal of getting more cars off the freeways. This calls to mind the Faculty of Environment at my university, whose primary focus is on the urban planning degree program. Urban planning as a rule seems to be all about politics, stakeholders, and NIMBYism; not so much about fighting climate change.

briandear 7y ago
> Are these environmental lawsuits really about protecting the environment (fighting climate change) “Protecting the environment” isn’t “fighting climate change.” Regardless of one’s position on the effects of CO2, that’s like suggesting that ensuring health should be entirely about how to prevent influenza. Protecting the environment includes protecting habit, stopping (actual, toxic) pollution. Climate change isn’t the end-all be-all of environmentalism. Climate change is being used at an almost religious level to justify pretty much anything climate activists deem necessary — regardless of any unintended (or subversively intended) consequences. Environmentalism doesn’t have to also mean “obsession with climate.” Some of us care deeply about the environment but also don’t have the audacity to think that the climate is changing because of humans. The climate has been changing for 4+ billion years. Of course, downvote away. Heresy is expected to be punished here. It is important that the point was made: caring about the environment can be independent of the climate change gospel.
- zenexer 7y ago
  It can, but there’s a point of diminishing returns. There’s little point in protecting an ecosystem if it isn’t going to exist in a decade or two anyway. A big construction project might have a more tangible short-term impact, but if that excuse is used in every project that’s likely to have a strong positive impact on climate change, we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course, nothing is every black-and-white; destroying countless local ecosystems is a high cost, and it’s difficult to measure whether it’s worth that cost. How many ecosystems will be saved as a result? From any single project, probably none. From all the projects combined, maybe a lot. It’s along the lines of, “nobody else is trying to prevent calamity X, so calamity X is inevitable, and I shouldn’t try to stop it if the cost is calamity Y, where calamity Y is a more localized version of calamity X.” Well, calamity X is going to bring about calamity Y anyway if everyone has that mindset. It reminds me of the Trolley Problem [1], except the “do nothing” outcome is a long way off, and the “do something” outcome happens immediately, thereby skewing the choices. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
  - grawprog 7y ago

atomi 7y ago

On the other hand funding for the high speed rail is frequently used as a political football. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/02/19/feds-cancel-high-speed-rail-grant-return-billions-california/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/02/19/feds-cancel-hig...

webninja 7y ago

Maybe courts need to move faster?