4 ms·
I don’t follow. Your first sentence says you do not care about trash incinerators, presumably next to your house. Your second sentence says you care about the s
by dh2022 4mo ago
I don’t follow. Your first sentence says you do not care about trash incinerators, presumably next to your house. Your second sentence says you care about the smell.
Trash incinerators are very smelly. You are contradicting yourself. I don’t get it.
- inigyou 4mo agoBut if someone invented a new type that didn't smell, it should be allowed. Regulate consequences, not causes. The power substation down the road is disguised as a brick house, because the rule was ultimately about maintaining the look of the area and not about forbidding power substations.
- dh2022 4mo agoMuch better explanation-thank you!
- red-iron-pine 4mo ago> Regulate consequences, not causes. a noble sentiment but most often these cannot be separated.
- inigyou 4mo agoThat's up to the property owner not the government. Can he invent a trash incinerator that doesn't smell or can't be?
- forgetfreeman 4mo agoRegulating consequences comes with a unmanageable increase in oversight by pushing the burden of proof onto understaffed, underfunded, and in some cases non-existent oversight bureaus, many of which are also subject to partisan political manipulation. This is literally the same mechanism that has permitted countless toxic substances to be pushed into the retail stream as responsibility for proof-of-safety is placed on underfunded government agencies instead of the manufacturer with no bottleneck to putting the product on the market. So while the idea might appeal to some ideologies it falls on it's face more or less instantly upon introduction to the real world.