4 ms·

> ”Environmental regulations cost money. Lots of money.” That’s a narrow-minded view. Sure, environmental regulations cost oil and gas companies money. But th

> ”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.
    - 07t15 6y ago
      Don't we live in the world where we're free to speculate on pretty much anything?
      - ianleeclark 6y ago
        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.
- jandrese 6y ago
  Those long term costs will be a political disadvantage for liberals, as they will give the GOP plenty of talking points about how they want to take away good honest coal mining jobs. This is the long game in action. Force liberals to make the hard decisions to save the planet, then completely own them with propaganda about those decisions. It's a winning strategy. Not only in the US, but across most of the Anglo sphere. As an added bonus it provides huge payoffs to billionaires at the cost of the poor and middle class.
  - Reason077 6y ago
    ”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-the-end-for-king-coal-in-britain https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/09/is-this-...
    - jandrese 6y ago
      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.
      - mywittyname 6y ago
        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.
ianleeclark 6y ago
> That’s a narrow-minded view. Sure, environmental regulations cost oil and gas companies money. And guess who is making donations, hiring nephews, and making up parts of portfolios. What the parent was saying is that externalities don't matter to these people because we don't value externalities as a society.
roland35 6y ago
Yes, pollution regulation is a classic example of something which has a huge cost on one group (business) and a minor benefit to a large group (everyone else), but the minority is much more motivated. It is an unfortunate byproduct of our government with special interests.
- jbay808 6y ago
  Doesn't this imply that the regulation could never have been passed in the first place?
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    The major anti-pollution regulations were largely passed against a background of dead and extremely sick people, which concentrated the public's mind. Death and injury from pollution is now greatly reduced and less visible where it does occur, and it's less on peoples' minds, so there's a risk of backsliding.

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.
  - 07t15 6y ago
    Don't we live in the world where we're free to speculate on pretty much anything?
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      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.
jandrese 6y ago
Those long term costs will be a political disadvantage for liberals, as they will give the GOP plenty of talking points about how they want to take away good honest coal mining jobs. This is the long game in action. Force liberals to make the hard decisions to save the planet, then completely own them with propaganda about those decisions. It's a winning strategy. Not only in the US, but across most of the Anglo sphere. As an added bonus it provides huge payoffs to billionaires at the cost of the poor and middle class.
- Reason077 6y ago
  ”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-the-end-for-king-coal-in-britain https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/09/is-this-...
  - jandrese 6y ago
    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.
    - mywittyname 6y ago
      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.

ianleeclark 6y ago

> That’s a narrow-minded view. Sure, environmental regulations cost oil and gas companies money. And guess who is making donations, hiring nephews, and making up parts of portfolios. What the parent was saying is that externalities don't matter to these people because we don't value externalities as a society.

roland35 6y ago

Yes, pollution regulation is a classic example of something which has a huge cost on one group (business) and a minor benefit to a large group (everyone else), but the minority is much more motivated. It is an unfortunate byproduct of our government with special interests.

jbay808 6y ago
Doesn't this imply that the regulation could never have been passed in the first place?
- rsynnott 6y ago
  The major anti-pollution regulations were largely passed against a background of dead and extremely sick people, which concentrated the public's mind. Death and injury from pollution is now greatly reduced and less visible where it does occur, and it's less on peoples' minds, so there's a risk of backsliding.