5 ms·

I believe the environmental laws are that the EPA makes specific rules and companies have to follow them. This reduces uncertainty for businesses over what is a

I believe the environmental laws are that the EPA makes specific rules and companies have to follow them. This reduces uncertainty for businesses over what is an acceptable level or form of pollution. In Bush Jr years, the EPA had to be taken to court to even accept that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pollutants, meaning they have to be regulated. The only other law I can think of would be reckless endangerment, hopefully somebody here can explain why it wouldn't apply. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...

donatj 7y ago
I really don’t follow the logic here. Wouldn’t denying the global supply chain the fuel it needs to provide food and goods be more reckless than not? If we just stopped using oil millions if not billions of people would die from malnutrition in a far shorter timeframe than global warming is going to cause.
- 23throwaway23 7y ago
  Heroin dealers are a great analogy here. Yea, if you cut off the supply to an addict they go through a process of withdrawal. And these companies have been working hard to manufacture demand and get more addicts. The world did fine without tonnes of plastics for quite a bit of time. Yea, it would require rethinking industrial civilization (unclear it would survive), but we need to stop weaning ourselves off this toxic asset ASAP and as quickly as possible. In contrast, the oil and gas companies are going to spend $5 TRILLION over the next 10 years to develop NEW oil and gas reserves, and expect to grow their markets, sales and obviously, emissions.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Heroin addicts can live without heroin. A bit tougher for people to live without food.
nroets 7y ago
I'm not a US citizen and I'm not a lawyer. But it I'm really worried that the US public will blame Exxon for climate change. If Exxon disappeared overnight, the current regulatory environment means that another oil company will take up the slack in decade or two. It's time for the US to realize they are much richer than most other countries. They should show the world they are willing to make real sacrifices. Otherwise we will see the tragedy of the commons play out on a global scale.
- ageofwant 7y ago
  There are no sacrifice necessary, that's a silly meme that refuses to die. Its the same kind of thinking that made people ask where they are going to keep all the horses if cities become to large back in the day. We have modern nuclear technology today, we should just elect to use it.
  - lozenge 7y ago
    "limiting warming below or close to 1.5 °C would require to decrease net emissions by around 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050" How long would it take to build out nuclear "with no sacrifice necessary"?
    - EGreg 7y ago
      5-7 years
    - sampo 7y ago
      > How long would it take to build out nuclear "with no sacrifice necessary"? Less time than it will take to finish this lawsuit. In the 1970s, Sweden built reactors in 5-7 years. In current decade, China has built reactors in 5-7 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Sweden#List_of_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Sweden#List_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China
      - 7y ago
cartoonworld 7y ago
In my experience there is quite a bit of confusion about the terminology of pollutant, emissions, and greenhouse gasses in the general public. Emissions and Pollutant are words than usually don't include CO2 in their regulatory or industry definitions. There are many Hondas out there running around with chrome plastic ULEV labels riveted to the car. ULEV is Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle, and in this circumstance "Emissions" refers to NMOG or "Non-Methane Organic Gas" which does not include CO2. I have anecdotally encountered many people who assume ULEV means "Doesn't Pollute As Much", and that is true. In my state, when you get a smog-check or emissions inspection, the gasses the state measures to issue the sticker are known as "Emission Gasses" in the regulatory literature used in the state DOT approved inspection technician licensing training. CO2 (along with oxygen) is classified as a "Diagnostic Gas" and is not considered for this purpose as a tailpipe emission. Many customers of the DOT inspections wrongly assume the emissions reduce CO2 or "Global Warming" when its really just reducing smog, cancer, asthma, acid rain, etc Of course the tested emissions gasses such as oxides of nitrogen are quite harmful, and anyone affected by them will be unhappy, no effort at all has been expended to educate the public wrt CO2. Most people assume their cars cause less "Bad Stuff" from the tailpipe laws and ULEV standards and catalytic converters and advanced chemicals. Their idea of that Bad Stuff usually includes CO2, but this is not the case. Hydrocarbons neccesarilly oxidize into CO2, H20, and other byproducts.
- lisptw102019 7y ago
  My understanding is that this is also a big part of the difference in emission standards between the US and EU. i.e. In the past we have been a lot more strict about things like NOX and other countries have been stronger about things like CO2. At least as far as diesels went, anyway.
  - cartoonworld 7y ago
    Yeah I've thought of that too. My memory certainly doesn't stretch back to the 1970's introduction of EGR Valves, but the rage that acid rain, ozone, smog caused back then got us into really good shape in a lot of ways regarding NOX. 60s and 70s Americans still have ulcer inducing rage about the diesel stink and headaches anytime they get near 'em. In Europe, if I am not mistaken, the tax paid on displacement is in part due to the shorthand way of attributing more displacement=more co2, plus the heavy fuel tax. The result is that the euros put-put along behind some very, very efficient power plants, while in the USA the marketing had everyone demanding v6 gasoline minivans and dumpy pickup trucks. Lot of people just get off on burning the stuff too, they like the fuel smell from the tailpipe. By the mid 1990's, while every garage monkey was bitching about having to use a computer to fix the cars, vehicles finally started to actually get good. But what blew my mind a little bit was learning about the Plymouth Scamp (Dodge Rampage) https://www.allpar.com/omni/rampage/scamp-rampage.html https://www.allpar.com/omni/rampage/scamp-rampage.html These babies have about the power of a Mercedes-Benz inline5 240D but gas, mind blowing post-fuel rationing MPG and with a truck bed! Probably way better from a stop than the nowadays-too-dangerous-to-drive Mercedes 240D too, I couldn't say having never driven a Scamp. The oldest and easily most skilled mechanic I've ever known had a Scamp as his main daily driver until it finally rusted away less than a decade ago, and he sure loved it. Sorry to pointlessly ramble, love this subject.

donatj 7y ago

I really don’t follow the logic here. Wouldn’t denying the global supply chain the fuel it needs to provide food and goods be more reckless than not? If we just stopped using oil millions if not billions of people would die from malnutrition in a far shorter timeframe than global warming is going to cause.

23throwaway23 7y ago
Heroin dealers are a great analogy here. Yea, if you cut off the supply to an addict they go through a process of withdrawal. And these companies have been working hard to manufacture demand and get more addicts. The world did fine without tonnes of plastics for quite a bit of time. Yea, it would require rethinking industrial civilization (unclear it would survive), but we need to stop weaning ourselves off this toxic asset ASAP and as quickly as possible. In contrast, the oil and gas companies are going to spend $5 TRILLION over the next 10 years to develop NEW oil and gas reserves, and expect to grow their markets, sales and obviously, emissions.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- beerandt 7y ago
  Heroin addicts can live without heroin. A bit tougher for people to live without food.

nroets 7y ago

I'm not a US citizen and I'm not a lawyer. But it I'm really worried that the US public will blame Exxon for climate change. If Exxon disappeared overnight, the current regulatory environment means that another oil company will take up the slack in decade or two. It's time for the US to realize they are much richer than most other countries. They should show the world they are willing to make real sacrifices. Otherwise we will see the tragedy of the commons play out on a global scale.

ageofwant 7y ago
There are no sacrifice necessary, that's a silly meme that refuses to die. Its the same kind of thinking that made people ask where they are going to keep all the horses if cities become to large back in the day. We have modern nuclear technology today, we should just elect to use it.
- lozenge 7y ago
  "limiting warming below or close to 1.5 °C would require to decrease net emissions by around 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050" How long would it take to build out nuclear "with no sacrifice necessary"?
  - EGreg 7y ago
    5-7 years
  - sampo 7y ago
    > How long would it take to build out nuclear "with no sacrifice necessary"? Less time than it will take to finish this lawsuit. In the 1970s, Sweden built reactors in 5-7 years. In current decade, China has built reactors in 5-7 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Sweden#List_of_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Sweden#List_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China
    - 7y ago

cartoonworld 7y ago

In my experience there is quite a bit of confusion about the terminology of pollutant, emissions, and greenhouse gasses in the general public. Emissions and Pollutant are words than usually don't include CO2 in their regulatory or industry definitions. There are many Hondas out there running around with chrome plastic ULEV labels riveted to the car. ULEV is Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle, and in this circumstance "Emissions" refers to NMOG or "Non-Methane Organic Gas" which does not include CO2. I have anecdotally encountered many people who assume ULEV means "Doesn't Pollute As Much", and that is true. In my state, when you get a smog-check or emissions inspection, the gasses the state measures to issue the sticker are known as "Emission Gasses" in the regulatory literature used in the state DOT approved inspection technician licensing training. CO2 (along with oxygen) is classified as a "Diagnostic Gas" and is not considered for this purpose as a tailpipe emission. Many customers of the DOT inspections wrongly assume the emissions reduce CO2 or "Global Warming" when its really just reducing smog, cancer, asthma, acid rain, etc Of course the tested emissions gasses such as oxides of nitrogen are quite harmful, and anyone affected by them will be unhappy, no effort at all has been expended to educate the public wrt CO2. Most people assume their cars cause less "Bad Stuff" from the tailpipe laws and ULEV standards and catalytic converters and advanced chemicals. Their idea of that Bad Stuff usually includes CO2, but this is not the case. Hydrocarbons neccesarilly oxidize into CO2, H20, and other byproducts.

lisptw102019 7y ago
My understanding is that this is also a big part of the difference in emission standards between the US and EU. i.e. In the past we have been a lot more strict about things like NOX and other countries have been stronger about things like CO2. At least as far as diesels went, anyway.
- cartoonworld 7y ago
  Yeah I've thought of that too. My memory certainly doesn't stretch back to the 1970's introduction of EGR Valves, but the rage that acid rain, ozone, smog caused back then got us into really good shape in a lot of ways regarding NOX. 60s and 70s Americans still have ulcer inducing rage about the diesel stink and headaches anytime they get near 'em. In Europe, if I am not mistaken, the tax paid on displacement is in part due to the shorthand way of attributing more displacement=more co2, plus the heavy fuel tax. The result is that the euros put-put along behind some very, very efficient power plants, while in the USA the marketing had everyone demanding v6 gasoline minivans and dumpy pickup trucks. Lot of people just get off on burning the stuff too, they like the fuel smell from the tailpipe. By the mid 1990's, while every garage monkey was bitching about having to use a computer to fix the cars, vehicles finally started to actually get good. But what blew my mind a little bit was learning about the Plymouth Scamp (Dodge Rampage) https://www.allpar.com/omni/rampage/scamp-rampage.html https://www.allpar.com/omni/rampage/scamp-rampage.html These babies have about the power of a Mercedes-Benz inline5 240D but gas, mind blowing post-fuel rationing MPG and with a truck bed! Probably way better from a stop than the nowadays-too-dangerous-to-drive Mercedes 240D too, I couldn't say having never driven a Scamp. The oldest and easily most skilled mechanic I've ever known had a Scamp as his main daily driver until it finally rusted away less than a decade ago, and he sure loved it. Sorry to pointlessly ramble, love this subject.