upvote

points

by rayiner5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby AlecSchueler4 hours ago|
next
[-]
People can still "do stuff and build things" while having consideration for environmental impacts.
reply
upvoteby trimbo3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The thing is, everyone's interpretation of "environmental impact" is different. To one person it can mean, "don't put the construction garbage in the river." To another it can mean "not one single Delta Smelt can be scared because of this construction."

And because it's so flexible, in states like California where we have aggressive environmental laws, it's leveraged as the NIMBY trump card. When it can't block a project, the process is used to make it inordinately expensive and take decades. One example would be the environmental studies for the CA High Speed Rail.[1]

[1] - https://ifp.org/fast-track-democratically-approved-transit-p...

reply
upvoteby Spooky232 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The deregulation stuff isn’t about nimby. It’s making nimby 10x worse by making it hyper local. That means poor people who are poorly organized get boned. State regulations tended to help with that.

I live in upstate NY, the rebuild of the GOP here is around hyper local issues, mostly apartments and solar. MAGA changed the discourse and allows the rabble rousers to say the quiet part out loud. (Ie bike infrastructure and apartments will bring poor black people to rape and pillage)

reply
upvoteby Dig1t52 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Do you have any specific examples of how new state regulations actually eased the regulatory burden for building something? Adding new regulations at the state level almost never removes the hyper local restrictions, it just adds a new layer of compliance on top.

How can the solution to burdensome regulations be MORE regulation?

reply
upvoteby AlecSchueler36 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> The thing is, everyone's interpretation of "environmental impact" is different.

I know, that's why we've developed all of these systems of representation to discuss and come to reasonable regulatory standards.

But that's neither here nor there in regards to the point being made that people can still build things in a regulated environment.

reply
upvoteby nradov24 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
In California at least we no longer build housing or infrastructure. Not much of it, anyway.
reply
upvoteby omgwtfbyobbq3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
To be fair, part of the inordinate expense is just because it takes longer for the environmental reviews (costs are in expected year of construction, so pushing a project a decade into the future can increase costs by 30-40+% (inflation + interest) depending on the specifics, even if everything else costs the same).

That's why the cost estimates for CA HSR jump a bunch every time an administration hostile to it enters the white house.

reply
upvoteby trimbo3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> project a decade into the future can increase costs

A very good point.

I don't agree we can blame Trump for HSR though. 2/3 of the time that has passed have had Democrats in the white house. HSR is nearly all pure-California-style self-inflicted wound. And honestly it's just the most visible project California has failed with, there are many others. The one I'm personally angry about is Prop 1. We're now 12 years after, and have no additional water resources even broken ground. It's shameful.

reply
upvoteby revolvingthrow3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Given the nightmarish nimby gridlock I’m less and less convinced it’s a good thing. I’d rather have people mad about windmills being eyesores than be perpetually chained to oil and gas for energy, as an example. I’m also not a fan of endless roadblocks to all manner of construction, even for such simple things as housing.

Yes, having a data center that raises your utilities costs by 300% jammed down your throat because the local mayor got blatantly bribed shouldn’t be a thing, especially when it’s powered by mobile gas turbines that stink up the entire area (note: I’m not against data centers on principle, but there are many ways for ultra-wealthy interests to leave people hosed). But things like faintly visible mini-sats don’t seem like a big deal, subjectively, unless you work at an observatory.

reply
upvoteby rayiner4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Empirically, we can't. We can barely even build EV chargers.
reply
upvoteby digitaltrees19 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
You might have thought they were stupid reasons but protecting a public good is a very important and challenging task. Unlike the FCC, spaceX isn’t accountable to democratic forces and can do antisocial things with the shared resource and there will be little we can do about it.
reply
upvoteby gclawes3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Some people want to live in Star Trek, but don't want to look up and see McKinley Station in the sky...
reply
upvoteby olyjohn1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You've never been to a dark sky area and seen how many Starlinks are flying around in the sky already. Its not one object in the sky.
reply
upvoteby sucrosesucrose1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Have you considered other people, the majority?
reply
upvoteby rglullis3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
It is not because can do something that they should.
reply
upvoteby smrtinsert3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What are the "stupid reasons"? Are they "regulations"?
reply
upvoteby DemocracyFTW240 minutes ago|
prev|
[-]
except it's not so much about do stuff and build things, it's about literally raping the planet, extorting and exploiting everyone including retirement savings, and also to "move fast and break things" which we know understand better was really meant to mean "remove accountability for the richest people", a.k.a. remove public oversight. Taxes for the poor, and the money goes to multi-billion dollar corps. Vaccines? Red tape! Safety belts? Red tape! Environmental concerns? Red tape!

And by the way this guy is responsible for the death of multiple hundred thousands deaths according to estimates. Because he championed removal of Red tape and shutdown of that allegedly "criminal organization" (his words), USAID. Tell that your children.

reply