4 ms·
No. No. And Maybe. Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or just di
by daveguy 3y ago
No. No. And Maybe. Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or just disengenuously attacking regulatory agencies. If you're legitimately concerned, I apologize. On the bright side, you can rest easy.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y agoThis is assuming the EPA still exists in a year, which I'm giving 50/50 odds.
- cogman10 3y agoIt'll still exist, however, it's powers will be reduced to nothing with the death of Chevron deference in June. This PFAs decision would be a prime example of something the EPA won't be able to regulate without a new congressional bill approving it.
- pdonis 3y ago> Like most EPA regulations they will be enforced on the manufacturing/commercial side first. Is this actual knowledge or just a prediction? > If you're legitimately concerned I am, but not just about the impact on me personally. I'm more generally concerned about whether the actual costs of such a regulation will be less than the actual benefits.
- daveguy 3y agoIt's knowledge. What current regulations require city hazmat vehicles? That was the only remotely plausible impact-to-consumer. Can you name any EPA regulations that affect consumers in any way remotely similar to your original post? Seems taking your fluorescents and lead based batteries to specialized recycle is about it on the consumer side. Personally I'm happy to do that to prevent poisoning my kids and my neighbor. Also happy for industry to identify safer alternative products. Please free yourself from the libertarian fever dream.