7 ms·

> 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 regula

> 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.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Pretty much. It is annoying, but it is not difficult to understand.
ngngngng 6y ago
Where does that money go?
- jandrese 6y ago
  To the 0.1%.
  - ngngngng 6y ago
    Ok Mr. Sanders. I meant like literally. Where does the money that is spent meeting environmental regulations go? The money is not just being burnt up. It's going to a different segment of the economy, I'm just not versed in what that means or looks like.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      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 aren't trying to cheat to save money. That sort of thing. It spreads out across the entire economy. Markets and industries are formed to support finding the cheapest way to keep the processes in question from damaging the environment and requiring much more expensive cleanup (think EPA superfund and class action lawsuits over medical conditions suffered by nearby communities) after the fact.
      - brewdad 6y ago
        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?
        jandrese 6y ago
        For some strange reason Fox News and AM Talk Radio never mention that part. So the message never reaches the base. The only people who would mention it are the untrustworthy lieberal media.
        12xo 6y ago
        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.
        makomk 6y ago
        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.
        jandrese 6y ago
        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.
dmurray 6y ago
I'd say it goes further than that. With the polarisation of American politics, rolling back environmental regulations is politically popular with one cohort of voters just because it's unpopular with the "other" side. Repealing regulations (not necessarily environmental ones) was popular enough to be a Trump campaign promise, after all.
- zentiggr 6y ago
  I've seen someone's opinion basically summarized as "a lot of these [Trump / republican] supporters don't really reason through anything political beyond "fuck liberals". As long as it opposes the damn liberals and whatever they want, it's all good, no matter how illogical, self-harming, or clueless in any other regard.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    When someone summarizes their political rivals' positions as "they're just nasty people who hate me and want to oppose anything I like", I don't think you should put a tremendous amount of stock in that.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      That has literally been their stated position: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/own-libs-was-snide-way-mock-conservatives-now-fun-way-ncna897636 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/own-libs-was-snide-way...
      - zentiggr 6y ago
        Opinion columns are not particularly strong support for any position. Other than some secondary references in the piece, I don't see anything factual there, just the writer's take on each side baiting the other.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      This would be an easier argument to make if one side wasn't making an issue out of wearing masks, fighting for their right to spread a deadly disease to others, and in some cases actually attacking people for asking them to wear masks.
ardy42 6y ago
> No, it's very easy. Environmental regulations cost money. Lots of money. It's much more profitable to keep these externalities. I don't think that's the whole story. You also have Zombie Reaganism, which has the Republicans reflexively aping 80s policy as the response to everything, even though it's not the 80s anymore.
- klyrs 6y ago
  They've profited handsomely from Reagan's policies. That's not exclusive to Republicans either; I think dems would be quite incensed about Hunter Biden in a different political context.
paulryanrogers 6y ago
Money can't buy cures for many pollution causing diseases. We should require that those in charge of these regulations must periodically drink from the 'treated' water output which tests as most polluted. Likewise they must breath air samples from the communities that test as most polluted. Once it's personal, and they can't buy their way out then improvements can be maintained.
- jefurii 6y ago
  > We should require that those in charge of these regulations must periodically drink from the 'treated' water output Better yet, they and their spouses and children.
Reason077 6y ago
> ”Environmental regulations cost money. Lots of money.” That’s a narrow-minded view. Sure, environmental regulations cost oil and gas companies money. But this fails to consider the external costs to society: increased healthcare costs and reduced life expectancy due to air and water pollution, future costs of global heating including property damage to coastal cities from rising sea levels, agricultural regions becoming less productive, etc. Secondly, reducing dependence on fossil fuels (many of which are imported, even in America) will improve energy security and reduce energy costs in the long term. Great economic benefits, as well as environmental ones.
- nickff 6y ago
  The USA has been improving energy security by reducing net fossil fuel imports since 2005, just not by weaning off carbon-based fuels.[1] [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
- arkanciscan 6y ago
  the choir errupts in applause
- Finnucane 6y ago
  Sure, but oil companies have the narrow view. External costs to society: they care not. Any cost they can pass on to you, they will.
  - Reason077 6y ago
    Of course. But is it government’s role solely to boost oil company profits? Or should they consider these against long-term costs incurred by everyone? Surely there is a middle ground that works for everyone. It’s not as if major oil companies are struggling to survive.
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      > 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.
mistrial9 6y ago
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.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

Pretty much. It is annoying, but it is not difficult to understand.

ngngngng 6y ago

Where does that money go?

jandrese 6y ago
To the 0.1%.
- ngngngng 6y ago
  Ok Mr. Sanders. I meant like literally. Where does the money that is spent meeting environmental regulations go? The money is not just being burnt up. It's going to a different segment of the economy, I'm just not versed in what that means or looks like.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    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 aren't trying to cheat to save money. That sort of thing. It spreads out across the entire economy. Markets and industries are formed to support finding the cheapest way to keep the processes in question from damaging the environment and requiring much more expensive cleanup (think EPA superfund and class action lawsuits over medical conditions suffered by nearby communities) after the fact.
    - brewdad 6y ago
      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?
      - jandrese 6y ago
        For some strange reason Fox News and AM Talk Radio never mention that part. So the message never reaches the base. The only people who would mention it are the untrustworthy lieberal media.
      - 12xo 6y ago
        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.
      - makomk 6y ago
        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.
        jandrese 6y ago
        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.

dmurray 6y ago

I'd say it goes further than that. With the polarisation of American politics, rolling back environmental regulations is politically popular with one cohort of voters just because it's unpopular with the "other" side. Repealing regulations (not necessarily environmental ones) was popular enough to be a Trump campaign promise, after all.

zentiggr 6y ago
I've seen someone's opinion basically summarized as "a lot of these [Trump / republican] supporters don't really reason through anything political beyond "fuck liberals". As long as it opposes the damn liberals and whatever they want, it's all good, no matter how illogical, self-harming, or clueless in any other regard.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  When someone summarizes their political rivals' positions as "they're just nasty people who hate me and want to oppose anything I like", I don't think you should put a tremendous amount of stock in that.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    That has literally been their stated position: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/own-libs-was-snide-way-mock-conservatives-now-fun-way-ncna897636 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/own-libs-was-snide-way...
    - zentiggr 6y ago
      Opinion columns are not particularly strong support for any position. Other than some secondary references in the piece, I don't see anything factual there, just the writer's take on each side baiting the other.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    This would be an easier argument to make if one side wasn't making an issue out of wearing masks, fighting for their right to spread a deadly disease to others, and in some cases actually attacking people for asking them to wear masks.

ardy42 6y ago

> No, it's very easy. Environmental regulations cost money. Lots of money. It's much more profitable to keep these externalities. I don't think that's the whole story. You also have Zombie Reaganism, which has the Republicans reflexively aping 80s policy as the response to everything, even though it's not the 80s anymore.

klyrs 6y ago
They've profited handsomely from Reagan's policies. That's not exclusive to Republicans either; I think dems would be quite incensed about Hunter Biden in a different political context.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

Money can't buy cures for many pollution causing diseases. We should require that those in charge of these regulations must periodically drink from the 'treated' water output which tests as most polluted. Likewise they must breath air samples from the communities that test as most polluted. Once it's personal, and they can't buy their way out then improvements can be maintained.

jefurii 6y ago
> We should require that those in charge of these regulations must periodically drink from the 'treated' water output Better yet, they and their spouses and children.

Reason077 6y ago

> ”Environmental regulations cost money. Lots of money.” That’s a narrow-minded view. Sure, environmental regulations cost oil and gas companies money. But this fails to consider the external costs to society: increased healthcare costs and reduced life expectancy due to air and water pollution, future costs of global heating including property damage to coastal cities from rising sea levels, agricultural regions becoming less productive, etc. Secondly, reducing dependence on fossil fuels (many of which are imported, even in America) will improve energy security and reduce energy costs in the long term. Great economic benefits, as well as environmental ones.

nickff 6y ago
The USA has been improving energy security by reducing net fossil fuel imports since 2005, just not by weaning off carbon-based fuels.[1] [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
arkanciscan 6y ago
the choir errupts in applause
Finnucane 6y ago
Sure, but oil companies have the narrow view. External costs to society: they care not. Any cost they can pass on to you, they will.
- Reason077 6y ago
  Of course. But is it government’s role solely to boost oil company profits? Or should they consider these against long-term costs incurred by everyone? Surely there is a middle ground that works for everyone. It’s not as if major oil companies are struggling to survive.
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > 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.

mistrial9 6y ago

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.