3 ms·

Allowlisting has the problem of being more subject to lobbying. Better to pick a more objective measure (environmental persistence) and then calculate cost add

by ethbr1 2y ago

Allowlisting has the problem of being more subject to lobbying. Better to pick a more objective measure (environmental persistence) and then calculate cost addition directly from that.

OutOfHere 2y ago
How can one calculate the cost of hurting someone else? How much should X pay a country's government to lower everyone's life expectancy worldwide by 10%? There is absolutely no objectivity to be had here, only bribery. It is so silly that it's not even funny. Moreover, money is an inflationary national currency, which itself is subject to heavy dilution. What good is a fixed rate going to do when it accomplishes the most damage in the decades ahead? Or how is it going to benefit animals and people of other countries that are not affiliated? We already have a system for regulating extremely toxic agents like deadly viruses, explosives, radioactive materials, and other very hazardous materials. It works. In truth there is no moral right that one has to emit pollution that hurts others.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > How can one calculate... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics > We already have a system for regulating... The TSCA is Swiss cheese, considering it started by grandfathering in 62,000 chemicals, which will never be tested. The EPA is generally able to test about 0.4% of chemicals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_of_1976 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act...
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    That's a grossly misleading argument. Chemicals exist in groups. If sufficiently safety information isn't available about a chemical, the safety of its group can be relied upon, and this is sufficient for initial regulation. In contrast, grandfathering is erroneous, dangerous, and heinous. Additionally, safety often is a function of chain length as well. Besides, we have AI and quantum chemistry too to formulate great estimates until perfect information becomes available. I have heard enough Ayn Rand style nonsense to know that it's nonsense. Her cult members will sell their wife and mother for money for a price, and they cannot be entrusted with environmental safety.

by ethbr1 2y ago

Allowlisting has the problem of being more subject to lobbying. Better to pick a more objective measure (environmental persistence) and then calculate cost addition directly from that.

OutOfHere 2y ago

How can one calculate the cost of hurting someone else? How much should X pay a country's government to lower everyone's life expectancy worldwide by 10%? There is absolutely no objectivity to be had here, only bribery. It is so silly that it's not even funny. Moreover, money is an inflationary national currency, which itself is subject to heavy dilution. What good is a fixed rate going to do when it accomplishes the most damage in the decades ahead? Or how is it going to benefit animals and people of other countries that are not affiliated? We already have a system for regulating extremely toxic agents like deadly viruses, explosives, radioactive materials, and other very hazardous materials. It works. In truth there is no moral right that one has to emit pollution that hurts others.

ethbr1 2y ago
> How can one calculate... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics > We already have a system for regulating... The TSCA is Swiss cheese, considering it started by grandfathering in 62,000 chemicals, which will never be tested. The EPA is generally able to test about 0.4% of chemicals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_of_1976 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act...
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  That's a grossly misleading argument. Chemicals exist in groups. If sufficiently safety information isn't available about a chemical, the safety of its group can be relied upon, and this is sufficient for initial regulation. In contrast, grandfathering is erroneous, dangerous, and heinous. Additionally, safety often is a function of chain length as well. Besides, we have AI and quantum chemistry too to formulate great estimates until perfect information becomes available. I have heard enough Ayn Rand style nonsense to know that it's nonsense. Her cult members will sell their wife and mother for money for a price, and they cannot be entrusted with environmental safety.