5 ms·

As an outdoorsman, fisher, and hunter, I view the other party as at war my hobbies. California banned the diesel engines being used by the fishing boat I went

As an outdoorsman, fisher, and hunter, I view the other party as at war my hobbies. California banned the diesel engines being used by the fishing boat I went out on. Without 300k to retrofit, the charter went out of business and everyone lost their jobs.

dymk 2y ago
Would you rather there be no outdoors for your grandchildren to hunt in? The “other party” isn’t at war with hunting, they just want a planet that’s livable for future generations.
- brational 2y ago
  They don't care - you can see it clearly in the person you're responding to that they're just thinking about their own personal wants. It's pure selfishness.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >Would you rather there be no outdoors for your grandchildren to hunt in? Of course not. Thats the kind of lack of nuance that I object to. I support high reward changes that protect or revitalize the environment. Banning several diesel boats instead of phasing them out at the end life/next upgrade isn't going to save the planet. It just makes the outdoors and environment inaccessible. There are so many thoughtless and net negative policies.
  - dymk 2y ago
    We don't have time to wait for a bunch of diesel engines to die of old age - as you know, they're quite long lived. And how long do you think is reasonable for diesel to be "phased out"? DEF became mandatory in the mid-2000s. It's been long enough. At some point you have to draw a line and say, we're not going to allow something that spits out this much pollution just to make catching fish as cheap as it used to be.
  - chneu 2y ago
    You view them as negative because you're only thinking about how it affects you. There are clear benefits to banning diesel engines in freshwater. That's why so many places are doing it. Lots of people support these measures because it's a very clear benefit. If a business can't afford to operate without being subsidized by the environment, they shouldn't be allowed to operate. When you use those diesel engines, you're taking out a loan using the environment. That loan needs to be repaid, and it gets repaid in the from of destruction rebuild costs. So when you complain about how "it would cost blah blah to do this safely", what you're really saying is "I want to destroy the environment for some cheap fun" which is deeply, deeply selfish. When you hear the total cost of disasters, think about it in the form of debt being repaid. That $1 billion because of so and so fire, that's the environment coming to collect the debt we racked up because we wanted cheap stuff and recreation. Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I'm talking about salt water diesel engine regulations that had essentially no lead in. The benefits may be clear, but that still side steps the question of to whom the cost and benefits accrue. >Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins. Yes, and this boundary is perpetually in dispute. The question is always who draws the line and how change is managed.
- Whoppertime 2y ago
  Why are people moving away from places like California with heavy environmental regulations? It seems like those states aren't livable for the current generations https://www.resiclubanalytics.com/p/net-domestic-migration-which-states-are-gaining-and-losing-americans https://www.resiclubanalytics.com/p/net-domestic-migration-w... These 5 states saw the biggest net domestic migration INCREASE between July 2023 and July 2024: Texas —> +85,267 North Carolina —> +82,288 South Carolina —> +68,043 Florida —> +64,017 Tennessee —> +48,476 These 5 states saw the biggest net domestic migration DECREASE between July 2023 and July 2024: California —> -239,575 New York —> -120,917 Illinois —> -56,235 New Jersey —> -35,554 Massachusetts —> -27,480
triceratops 2y ago
> I view the other party as at war my hobbies. And they think you put your hobby above other people's lungs. shrugs I'm sorry about the charter going out of business. A better bill would've made provisions to help businesses with upgrade costs. Think of everyone's point of view. Not just "my hobby" and "they're doing stuff to me". If you don't care about others they won't care about you. That's what society is.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Yeah, I guess that is the problem. I do care about other people, I just dont think that some exhaust discharged into the water from a fishing boat on the ocean is really harming people's lungs. My understanding is the issue was NOx emissions as they relate to climate, but I think there is a lot more meaningful and low hanging fruit than banning a few dozen vessels. > If you don't care about others they won't care about you. That's what society is. Society is others not caring about you, no matter what you do. Society doesn't tailor its treatment to individuals based on their thoughts or actions. They are invisible.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > some exhaust discharged into the water from a fishing boat on the ocean The concern is more about particulate pollution when the boats are in dock. > I think there is a lot more meaningful and low hanging fruit than banning a few dozen vessels Quite possibly. I don't know the issue as well as you. > Society is others not caring about you, no matter what you do Not sure where you got that idea... > Society doesn't tailor its treatment to individuals based on their thoughts or actions What on earth are you talking about?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I get that idea because society does not care about extremely localized costs if there is a diffuse benefit, or even a good feeling. You said society is being kind to others and it will be kind to you. My impression is the exact opposite. Society doesn't care if you're the best person in the world if you're in the way of something it wants. It is happy to put a freeway through your house to save a few bucks or minutes, even if it ruins your life. Regulation is an even more attractive way to do this because society doesn't have to pay some low ball eminent domain. Nobody cares if someone has spent their life building a fishing business and 300K loan on boat, the social consensus is haha, sucks to suck loser.

dymk 2y ago

Would you rather there be no outdoors for your grandchildren to hunt in? The “other party” isn’t at war with hunting, they just want a planet that’s livable for future generations.

brational 2y ago
They don't care - you can see it clearly in the person you're responding to that they're just thinking about their own personal wants. It's pure selfishness.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
>Would you rather there be no outdoors for your grandchildren to hunt in? Of course not. Thats the kind of lack of nuance that I object to. I support high reward changes that protect or revitalize the environment. Banning several diesel boats instead of phasing them out at the end life/next upgrade isn't going to save the planet. It just makes the outdoors and environment inaccessible. There are so many thoughtless and net negative policies.
- dymk 2y ago
  We don't have time to wait for a bunch of diesel engines to die of old age - as you know, they're quite long lived. And how long do you think is reasonable for diesel to be "phased out"? DEF became mandatory in the mid-2000s. It's been long enough. At some point you have to draw a line and say, we're not going to allow something that spits out this much pollution just to make catching fish as cheap as it used to be.
- chneu 2y ago
  You view them as negative because you're only thinking about how it affects you. There are clear benefits to banning diesel engines in freshwater. That's why so many places are doing it. Lots of people support these measures because it's a very clear benefit. If a business can't afford to operate without being subsidized by the environment, they shouldn't be allowed to operate. When you use those diesel engines, you're taking out a loan using the environment. That loan needs to be repaid, and it gets repaid in the from of destruction rebuild costs. So when you complain about how "it would cost blah blah to do this safely", what you're really saying is "I want to destroy the environment for some cheap fun" which is deeply, deeply selfish. When you hear the total cost of disasters, think about it in the form of debt being repaid. That $1 billion because of so and so fire, that's the environment coming to collect the debt we racked up because we wanted cheap stuff and recreation. Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I'm talking about salt water diesel engine regulations that had essentially no lead in. The benefits may be clear, but that still side steps the question of to whom the cost and benefits accrue. >Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins. Yes, and this boundary is perpetually in dispute. The question is always who draws the line and how change is managed.
Whoppertime 2y ago
Why are people moving away from places like California with heavy environmental regulations? It seems like those states aren't livable for the current generations https://www.resiclubanalytics.com/p/net-domestic-migration-which-states-are-gaining-and-losing-americans https://www.resiclubanalytics.com/p/net-domestic-migration-w... These 5 states saw the biggest net domestic migration INCREASE between July 2023 and July 2024: Texas —> +85,267 North Carolina —> +82,288 South Carolina —> +68,043 Florida —> +64,017 Tennessee —> +48,476 These 5 states saw the biggest net domestic migration DECREASE between July 2023 and July 2024: California —> -239,575 New York —> -120,917 Illinois —> -56,235 New Jersey —> -35,554 Massachusetts —> -27,480

triceratops 2y ago

> I view the other party as at war my hobbies. And they think you put your hobby above other people's lungs. shrugs I'm sorry about the charter going out of business. A better bill would've made provisions to help businesses with upgrade costs. Think of everyone's point of view. Not just "my hobby" and "they're doing stuff to me". If you don't care about others they won't care about you. That's what society is.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Yeah, I guess that is the problem. I do care about other people, I just dont think that some exhaust discharged into the water from a fishing boat on the ocean is really harming people's lungs. My understanding is the issue was NOx emissions as they relate to climate, but I think there is a lot more meaningful and low hanging fruit than banning a few dozen vessels. > If you don't care about others they won't care about you. That's what society is. Society is others not caring about you, no matter what you do. Society doesn't tailor its treatment to individuals based on their thoughts or actions. They are invisible.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > some exhaust discharged into the water from a fishing boat on the ocean The concern is more about particulate pollution when the boats are in dock. > I think there is a lot more meaningful and low hanging fruit than banning a few dozen vessels Quite possibly. I don't know the issue as well as you. > Society is others not caring about you, no matter what you do Not sure where you got that idea... > Society doesn't tailor its treatment to individuals based on their thoughts or actions What on earth are you talking about?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I get that idea because society does not care about extremely localized costs if there is a diffuse benefit, or even a good feeling. You said society is being kind to others and it will be kind to you. My impression is the exact opposite. Society doesn't care if you're the best person in the world if you're in the way of something it wants. It is happy to put a freeway through your house to save a few bucks or minutes, even if it ruins your life. Regulation is an even more attractive way to do this because society doesn't have to pay some low ball eminent domain. Nobody cares if someone has spent their life building a fishing business and 300K loan on boat, the social consensus is haha, sucks to suck loser.