3 ms·

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

by 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

by 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