Hacker News Reader

Comment by weaksauce | Hacker News Reader

are you kidding? it's because the monied interests almost never have to deal with negative externalities and the cleanup of direct negatives because they are the ones that pay the people voted into power with that money to make the laws that could do such a thing. california is about as progressive as it comes in that regard but even then the machine of progress inches.

look at the pg&e dixie fire that had a cost of well over 1 billion dollars (1000 million dollars) and they got fined 55 million dollars so they could avoid criminal charges.

View on HN

In fairness, the corruption that led to PG&E accidentally burning down a city every few years occurred back in the 70’s, so those people are retired / dead, and the statute of limitations applies.

We don’t know how many people their current blatant and widespread corruption will kill, so I guess we’ll need to wait and see, then prosecute the responsible parties in 50 years.

should there be a statute of limitations on ecological catastrophe? that seems like it would strongly, and perversely, incentivise cover-ups and other nefarious weaponisations of information asymmetry against the interests of the commons.

The Biden administration have just changed the rules about environmental assessments to include all future costs. It's a _big_ win.

I'm sure there is a better source, but this covers it https://www.brookings.edu/research/overview-and-analysis-of-...

that is big news. even as a really online person i didn't see that. though it's an executive order so it's not going to stand up to the next republican president whenever that is unfortunately... though if that comes to fruition with how it's trending we are not going to need to worry about negative externalities and environmental assessments. I do hope you are right that it's a big win in the long run but i do feel jaded.

This sounds nice, but I'm struggling to imagine how it will be effective in practice. Could you offer any elaboration?

> These changes undoubtedly reflect a more progressive view of regulation. Yet, they do not jettison cost-benefit analysis. Instead, they have a basis in recent academic research, and they appear to be designed with an eye toward helping agencies withstand court challenges to their cost-benefit analysis.

As I understand it, a cost benefit analyses did not factor into the recent supreme court ruling against the EPA, nor the one from last summer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com