4 ms·

We are reaching the libertarian dream. Polluters shall celebrate.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
It's going to backfire on the libertarian's massively. Environmentalists are going to weaponize Chevron and bring polluters into court in massive numbers. Judges now get to interpret Congress's vague rules instead of the agencies. Some judges will interpret in favor of the company, others in favor of the environmentalists. So companies will not have a clear idea what the actual regulations are. Uncertainty will reign, and uncertainty is bad for business, even worse than harsh but clear rules.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  Except no this won't happen. They may try to bring polluters to courts, but the court system will be backlogged so they could pollute for years without consequences. And when they do get to court many many years from now, politically appointed judges will rule politically, not legally. That seems to be the standard now.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    The politically appointed judges in many states are appointed by Democrats. Also a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
      > The politically appointed judges in many states are appointed by Democrats. And in many states they are appointed by republicans. Companies already venue shop to cases to get the judge they want. Why won't this continue to happen? > a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty. It's not for the companies because while its bogged down, its business-as-usual. The longer they can delay, the better for them.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        It'll be the environmental orgs bringing the cases that will be doing the venue shopping, not the corps. > while its bogged down, its business-as-usual. Uncertainty is bad for business.
        Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
        > Uncertainty is bad for business. Only some kinds, while other kinds are great for business. For example, the tabacco industry very deliberately created uncertainty about the links between smoking and lung cancer for years and years because it meant in the meantime they could continue business as usual.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        The only thing they care about is stock price. What's it going to do for your stock price if you have a $100B lawsuit hanging over your head for many years?
        rqtwteye 2y ago
        Tobacco companies did really well for decades while a lawsuit was looming.
        verdverm 2y ago
        Tobacco companies are still doing really well, in other countries
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        on the contrary, they were almost always the companies with the lowest stock price in relation to their dividend payout.
JackFr 2y ago
You know Chevron won Chevron v. NRDC, right?
- falcolas 2y ago
  The judiciary agreeing with the regulatory agency once decades ago does not set a useful precedent. Well, it did, but that precedent was just revoked.
marcuskane2 2y ago
Far from it. I'm a libertarian and an environmentalist. Pollution is harming other people just as clearly and directly as assault, rape or murder and so regulations against that harm still fit naturally and comfortably within even fairly extreme or hardline libertarian frameworks. A law that says "You can't spray mace in someone's face" and a law that says "You can't spray <whatever other harmful chemical> in <the air that will eventually hit people's faces>" are ideologically the same. Perhaps you meant it's a fascist, statist or autocratic dream? The people with power (economic, political, social) get to benefit while the people without power get harmed.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  The libertarians I know are against regulation. Instead you are supposed to sue the party that has injured you. Good luck proving that you were injured for example by leaded gas. It's hard enough for a government agency with many lawyers and scientists to prove long term harm done by pollution. As the little guy you have no chance against a company with deep pockets who can buy as many expert witnesses and lawyers as needed.

It's going to backfire on the libertarian's massively. Environmentalists are going to weaponize Chevron and bring polluters into court in massive numbers. Judges now get to interpret Congress's vague rules instead of the agencies. Some judges will interpret in favor of the company, others in favor of the environmentalists. So companies will not have a clear idea what the actual regulations are. Uncertainty will reign, and uncertainty is bad for business, even worse than harsh but clear rules.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
Except no this won't happen. They may try to bring polluters to courts, but the court system will be backlogged so they could pollute for years without consequences. And when they do get to court many many years from now, politically appointed judges will rule politically, not legally. That seems to be the standard now.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The politically appointed judges in many states are appointed by Democrats. Also a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    > The politically appointed judges in many states are appointed by Democrats. And in many states they are appointed by republicans. Companies already venue shop to cases to get the judge they want. Why won't this continue to happen? > a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty. It's not for the companies because while its bogged down, its business-as-usual. The longer they can delay, the better for them.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      It'll be the environmental orgs bringing the cases that will be doing the venue shopping, not the corps. > while its bogged down, its business-as-usual. Uncertainty is bad for business.
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
        > Uncertainty is bad for business. Only some kinds, while other kinds are great for business. For example, the tabacco industry very deliberately created uncertainty about the links between smoking and lung cancer for years and years because it meant in the meantime they could continue business as usual.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        The only thing they care about is stock price. What's it going to do for your stock price if you have a $100B lawsuit hanging over your head for many years?
        rqtwteye 2y ago
        Tobacco companies did really well for decades while a lawsuit was looming.
        verdverm 2y ago
        Tobacco companies are still doing really well, in other countries
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        on the contrary, they were almost always the companies with the lowest stock price in relation to their dividend payout.

JackFr 2y ago

You know Chevron won Chevron v. NRDC, right?

falcolas 2y ago
The judiciary agreeing with the regulatory agency once decades ago does not set a useful precedent. Well, it did, but that precedent was just revoked.

marcuskane2 2y ago

Far from it. I'm a libertarian and an environmentalist. Pollution is harming other people just as clearly and directly as assault, rape or murder and so regulations against that harm still fit naturally and comfortably within even fairly extreme or hardline libertarian frameworks. A law that says "You can't spray mace in someone's face" and a law that says "You can't spray <whatever other harmful chemical> in <the air that will eventually hit people's faces>" are ideologically the same. Perhaps you meant it's a fascist, statist or autocratic dream? The people with power (economic, political, social) get to benefit while the people without power get harmed.

rqtwteye 2y ago
The libertarians I know are against regulation. Instead you are supposed to sue the party that has injured you. Good luck proving that you were injured for example by leaded gas. It's hard enough for a government agency with many lawyers and scientists to prove long term harm done by pollution. As the little guy you have no chance against a company with deep pockets who can buy as many expert witnesses and lawyers as needed.