• 5oap10116@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    138
    ·
    17 days ago

    I do like how their argument basically boils down to “You obviously don’t understand how much it will cost us to clean up the giant toxic mess we spent so much money trying to hide.”

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      16 days ago

      That’s always their argument.

      Dumping trash in the ocean?

      Asbestos?

      Cigarettes?

      Chemicals in the ground?

      DDT?

      Carbon in the atmosphere?

      “You obviously don’t understand how much it will cost us to clean up the giant toxic mess we spent so much money trying to hide.”

      • P1nkman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        Which also means line goes down. That is unprecedented, and it’d lower the quality of their lives. Think about the rich people!

        So, when do we eat them?

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    17 days ago

    They had decades to prepare their legal team for this. I don’t expect them to just roll over and accept responsibility.

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      17 days ago

      The fact that they’re leaning on the “arbitrary and capricious” argument means that they don’t have another grounded legal theory for why it’s an exceedance of EPA’s authority. They’re throwing A&C at the wall to see if it sticks because the alternative is willingly take on a liability that’s going to potentially peek into the billions of dollars. It’s a hail mary, plain and simple.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          Yeah it’s potentially a much higher cost, depending on how class-action lawsuits play out, but that study doesn’t necessarily say it’s coating the surface of the ocean. It’s diluted into the ocean itself, and because it likes to stick to foam it tends to accumulate at higher concentrations close to the surface. That study is documenting that air particles have a much higher concentration than what’s typically seen diluted in sea water, so it’s essentially congregating in the air-water interface zone.

          But yes, your point is well taken that they’re facing catastrophic liability costs from a combination of past health impacts and future cleanup/removal.

        • Wahots@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          17 days ago

          Wonderful. I bet bivalve creatures are bioaccumulating tons of PFAS on the beach. Not to mention near-shore fish.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          17 days ago

          Yeah it’s pretty squarely in their wheelhouse.

          Does it do the following?

          • the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;

          • the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and

          • in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.

          If so, then:

          • the Administrator shall publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate, by rule, national primary drinking water regulations under this subsection.

          Wham, bam, thank you ma’am.

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    17 days ago

    It sounds like their only argument is “it’s expensive”, which I find somewhat comforting because then it sounds like they at least agree with the science.

    It’s a shame lawmakers don’t put stipulations in that they cannot trickle down those costs to the consumers. It’s not our fault, and we shouldn’t be put in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t position.

    Can we form a class-action lawsuit to sue anybody who raises our rates over this? Legit question.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      That’s always their argument and try to spin it as a US problem.

      “You’ll remove a LOT OF JOBS and make everything more expensive if you ban child labor!”

      • jaspersgroove@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        The conservatives ethos in a nutshell.

        Doing the right thing is expensive, and the only thing in the world that actually matters is money, therefore we should be allowed to do the evil thing, otherwise you hate freedom…or something.

  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    This crime will last for generations - will its reward last generations too? These assholes should die penniless, and have literally nothing to leave their heirs. And those heirs should be audited for the source of any money they make.

    Enough of letting these guys have a legacy. Their names should be dragged through the mud and their children sent to public school.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    17 days ago

    That’s because these Big Corporations will LITERALLY do the Right Thing without ANY Government intervention or Regulations! CHECKMATE COMMUNISTS!

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      17 days ago

      You laugh, but that’s exactly what they’re claiming, without a hint of irony:

      “The businesses in our state, including those in manufacturing, have a proven track record of supporting North Carolina’s economic vitality and doing so responsibly. It is important that we do not hastily pass regulations without fully accounting for both the positive benefits and potential negative impacts proposed rules would have on the state and its business community.”

  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    17 days ago

    “If only the pesky government would stop intervening in the free market, we mega-corps would’ve all signed up years ago to voluntarily fix the pollution problems we’ve spent decades covering up… But because you’re telling us to, we don’t want to.” /s

    Paraphrasing of course, but this is basically their defence - which is just a tad bit shoddy if you ask me. If they didn’t need this law to get their act together, then why is this law having to be made because they didn’t get their act together?

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      The government could just auction off the rights to pollute and make sure that the amount up for auction is within nature’s carrying capacity. Then let the companies bid and let the markets do their thing. Then the government can say the market has spoken and come down hard on those polluting to much and defrauding the market.

  • gibmiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    17 days ago

    You want us to stop poisoning the world? But that’s too hard! I don’t wanna! It’s too much work! You can’t make me!

  • Montagge@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    17 days ago

    Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.

    I’m glad I’m on a well

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      17 days ago

      Unless your well is drawing from an uncontaminated aquifer, that doesn’t really help you. This class of chemicals wound up pretty much everywhere.

      • Montagge@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        17 days ago

        I was referring to the utilities response not the pollution itself. You’re not wrong.