3 ms·

That latter point seems pretty relevant. If they intended to not use the tanks unless approved, And the construction process itself wasn’t particularly disrupti

That latter point seems pretty relevant. If they intended to not use the tanks unless approved, And the construction process itself wasn’t particularly disruptive (I’m assuming they have a broad construction permit for the total amount of area being built on), it doesn’t seem morally questionable to build things ahead of time while the paperwork for use is still being finalized. Like, would building the tanks have been illegal if they were simply art pieces? That confusion may have been why they proceeded. Generally speaking, I don’t think we should underestimate the degree to which regulatory burdens hold back progress in decarbonization. Getting permits for a solar farm in the US is a long process but planting a field for agriculture is much easier spite of concerns for runoff from fertilizers etc. The status quo bias of strict regulations needs to be considered if we are to decarbonize fast enough. (This is particularly bad in the US for increasing housing density and building public transport infrastructure… these things are stymied by status-quo regulations and NIMBYism, and it makes it essentially impossible for us to decarbonize via densification on a reasonable timescale.) How long does it take to satisfy all stakeholders to get HSR built in California? What about building multiplexes in places zoned single-family? You run into hall monitor NIMBYism and slow regulatory burdens constantly. Meanwhile, people continue to buy big fossil-fuel guzzling trucks and SUVs, planes keep belching emissions, etc. I think the climate is going to run out of time.

gamblor956 5y ago
Just so everyone is on the same page: violating a building permit is a regulatory violation in essentially all of the the West, including the U.S. The differences are in the size of the monetary penalties that the jurisdiction will impose (and in some jurisdictions, the penalties may even require that unpermitted buildings or unmpermitted portions thereof be taken down, regardless of the amount of work performed).
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  It’s not clear that they violated a building permit. It sounds like they had a building permit but the environmental permit for the tanks had not yet been approved.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    That's actually worse. An environmental permit violation can result in fines, an order to remove the offending structure, and restoration of the land to the same-or-better condition than it was before the violation. (In most places, a building permit represents the approval of construction plans and entitlements, but does not represent permission to build. An environmental permit grants permission to build and conduct activities on a given site. Anyone with any experience in construction would know that, so it sounds like whoever is in charge at Tesla Germany doesn't have experience in this area.)
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      In this case the environmental permit would be for the operational tanks not simply building some thing that looks like a tank but is never used. I keep pointing out that a chemical permit is not really violated if there aren’t any chemicals, but people in the comments here keep ignoring that point. It is not the building that would be against the permit but the chemicals. In this case the tanks were not used to store any chemicals so again they wouldn’t have been in Direct violation of a environmental use permit for chemicals. It’s always weird how people seem to assume that Tesla has a death wish when it comes to permits and such when back-and-forth between regulators and large companies doing large projects is pretty normal and not evidence of massive environmental destruction. In any large project you will have some level of miscommunication or simply inspector concerns. Simply building tanks that are not yet permitted to hold chemicals is noteworthy for inspectors but is not necessarily actual wrongdoing, especially if Tesla is in the process of trying to get them properly permitted for actual use.
      - gamblor956 5y ago
        Environmental permits apply both to the construction of a facility and to their use. So yes, it matters that Tesla went ahead and constructed some tanks without having the environmental permit first. It's irrelevant that they aren't going to actually use those tanks, as that's a separate provision of the environmental permit.

gamblor956 5y ago

Just so everyone is on the same page: violating a building permit is a regulatory violation in essentially all of the the West, including the U.S. The differences are in the size of the monetary penalties that the jurisdiction will impose (and in some jurisdictions, the penalties may even require that unpermitted buildings or unmpermitted portions thereof be taken down, regardless of the amount of work performed).

Robotbeat 5y ago
It’s not clear that they violated a building permit. It sounds like they had a building permit but the environmental permit for the tanks had not yet been approved.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  That's actually worse. An environmental permit violation can result in fines, an order to remove the offending structure, and restoration of the land to the same-or-better condition than it was before the violation. (In most places, a building permit represents the approval of construction plans and entitlements, but does not represent permission to build. An environmental permit grants permission to build and conduct activities on a given site. Anyone with any experience in construction would know that, so it sounds like whoever is in charge at Tesla Germany doesn't have experience in this area.)
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    In this case the environmental permit would be for the operational tanks not simply building some thing that looks like a tank but is never used. I keep pointing out that a chemical permit is not really violated if there aren’t any chemicals, but people in the comments here keep ignoring that point. It is not the building that would be against the permit but the chemicals. In this case the tanks were not used to store any chemicals so again they wouldn’t have been in Direct violation of a environmental use permit for chemicals. It’s always weird how people seem to assume that Tesla has a death wish when it comes to permits and such when back-and-forth between regulators and large companies doing large projects is pretty normal and not evidence of massive environmental destruction. In any large project you will have some level of miscommunication or simply inspector concerns. Simply building tanks that are not yet permitted to hold chemicals is noteworthy for inspectors but is not necessarily actual wrongdoing, especially if Tesla is in the process of trying to get them properly permitted for actual use.
    - gamblor956 5y ago
      Environmental permits apply both to the construction of a facility and to their use. So yes, it matters that Tesla went ahead and constructed some tanks without having the environmental permit first. It's irrelevant that they aren't going to actually use those tanks, as that's a separate provision of the environmental permit.