2/3/2026 at 2:31:10 PM
In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated.Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected.
Regulations are not people, and they don't have rights. It is fair and reasonable to demand that environmental regulation justify its existence with hard, scientifically verifiable data or else get chopped. Clearly, banning leaded gasoline has that kind of justification, and therefore I'm strongly in favor of maintaining that ban and extending it wherever it isn't in place yet. The same reasonable standard should be applied to other regulations across the board.
by cfiggers
2/3/2026 at 3:48:39 PM
Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated.The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough.
If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm cool with revisiting anything, but the common sense wisdom around environmental regulation has been corrupted by corporate public relations campaigns.
by breakyerself
2/3/2026 at 4:15:47 PM
CEQA in California is very often used to block apartments in existing urban areas.So, instead, California continues to mostly build single family housing sprawl into natural habitats.
A clear example of environmental regulation hurting the environment and the climate. And of course the affordability of housing.
by an_account
2/3/2026 at 5:39:11 PM
CEQA itself is a mixed bag. I want to be clear that there are very important things the CEQA does to improve our environmental conditions[0]! The very real issue of CEQA being “weaponized”[1] stems from how environmental complaints have to be re-litigated in their entirety every time one is filed. Say there’s a coalition of neighbors who do not want something built. They can each file a lawsuit alleging environmental issues and each will have to be handled in isolation*I am not going into immense detail here. It is admittedly a bit more complex than this, but this is a reasonable summary
[0] https://youtu.be/TKN7Cl6finE?si=CR4SjVK5_ojk-OKq [1] https://www.planningreport.com/2015/12/21/new-ceqa-study-rev...
by HowardStark
2/3/2026 at 11:52:24 PM
> there are very important things the CEQA does to improve our environmental conditionsWhich fits with OP’s assertion that it does “more harm than good.” (Fortunately, restricting the private right of action would curtail a lot of the harm. On the national level I’m pretty much at the point of wanting NEPA repealed.)
by JumpCrisscross
2/3/2026 at 6:11:36 PM
I don't know if its still true, but I recall reading once that CEQA had never been used to actually prevent or even slow the building of a dam or a mine or something. It had only ever been used to hobble otherwise neutral development. Its a good idea in theory, but I feel like the plaintiff ought to be able to articulate what environmental impact they are concerned about and maybe require a study from them in support of that claim too.by petsfed
2/3/2026 at 5:33:34 PM
Thank you for mentioning this, it was the first thing I thought of in this conversation thread!by cyrialize
2/3/2026 at 6:18:45 PM
Government should be active and in charge of urban planning. It is a matter of the common good.One of the biggest problems today is that urban planning has basically evaporated. Local and state governments don't plan towns anymore. Things are left to developers who have no other concern than to run a street off a major road and plop a few houses down, sell, and move on to the next project. No thought is given to traffic or public services or walkability or public transportation. No care is given to integration with existing urban structures. Instead of mixed-use zoning or building houses around a common public space, which are historically the more common and sensible form of urban planning, we end up with car-dependent suburban dead zones, suburban sprawl.
This should be receiving more attention from environmentalists, as urban planning is intimately related to environmental issues.
by lo_zamoyski
2/3/2026 at 8:57:22 PM
I don't know where you live, and this is going to be very dependent on where you live, but in most places that are experiencing these issues I think you actually have the problem backwards. For any given parcel of land, building upwards would be the more profitable move. Local governments deliberately legislate planning that prioritizes single-family homes, cars, and sprawl; developers are then forced to operate within these constraints. They'd rather be building density!by wk_end
2/3/2026 at 4:25:00 PM
And all of the harsh chemicals that get released when that new construction burns up in wildfires...by busterarm
2/3/2026 at 4:40:34 PM
Yeah I'm not in favor of sprawl. It sounds like it needs to be amended, but do you want to go back to polluted air and water just because a small minority of regulations need to be repealed or amended? Wouldn't it make more sense to just revisit whatever regulations are having unintended consequences?by breakyerself
2/3/2026 at 4:42:17 PM
>do you want to go back to polluted air and water just because a small minority of regulations need to be repealed or amended?>Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected.
by derektank
2/3/2026 at 5:03:37 PM
When I say they're mostly good, but we should fix what's broken and people start hitting me with examples of broken regulation I can only interpret that as an example for why environmental regulation should be opposed by default. So I respond accordingly.I've never said all environmental regulation is good. That would be stupid, but you should have evidence based reasons for wanting to repeal or modify a regulation.
Existing regulation was put in place for a reason and those reasons likely still matter. Even if the regulation is falling short of having unintended consequences.
by breakyerself
2/3/2026 at 8:34:34 PM
current environmental regulations act to slow progress on solar power installationwe should either delete the regulations, or add exemptions for the infrastructure we need to build to avoid climate disaster
this is a time sensitive issue for our environment. every day spent debating regulatory nuance is a day wasted
at this point I prefer drastic decisive action over continued inaction: delete the regulations and re-introduce them
by spongebobstoes
2/3/2026 at 6:01:55 PM
All of the regulations that are used to "limit sprawl" in the US functionally prohibit the construction of new dense city blocks even moreso, and this in turn forces suburban sprawl to occur.by mapt
2/3/2026 at 4:17:13 PM
I'd argue that environmental regulations that impede building modern nuclear power plants to replace coal power plants are net harmful. Nuclear power safety has advanced a lot since Chernobyl.by nokcha
2/3/2026 at 4:27:54 PM
Chernobyl design was never in use in the US, but nuclear went through a long period of near universal public opposition to its expansion because of the high profile disasters that it caused.Now the cost of solar and storage are dropping at a rate I doubt nuclear is ever going to make a significant comeback. I'm not opposed to it, but I wonder if the economics will ever be favorable even with regulatory reform.
by breakyerself
2/3/2026 at 4:37:54 PM
> Chernobyl design was never in use in the USCommercially. Several early test reactors were essentially just graphite moderated piles not unlike Chernobyl, but they were abandoned for a reason.
by ch4s3
2/3/2026 at 5:32:14 PM
Graphite moderated reactors are broadly fine, the problem was with some technical specifics of that specific reactor design, and the operational culture that surrounded it. After Chernobyl, those flaws were corrected and operation of other RBMK reactors has continued to this very day, with no repeats.by mikkupikku
2/3/2026 at 5:59:51 PM
That's good additional clarification, I only meant to point out that graphite moderated, water cooled reactors had existed in the US and UK.by ch4s3
2/3/2026 at 5:32:29 PM
Chernobyl may have done a lot to inflame cultural imagination of what could happen in the worst cases, but the US still had its own high profile disasters like Three Mile Island.by WorldMaker
2/3/2026 at 6:46:36 PM
I would hesitate to call Three Mile Island a disaster, it was certainly a nuclear accident. A reactor was damaged, but no one was injured and an absolutely miniscule amount of radiation was released. The other units at the plant continued to operate until quite recently (and might actually be starting up again).by patmorgan23
2/3/2026 at 4:38:44 PM
It would. People are still building some natural gas plants even despite renewables being cheaper and nuclear is far cheaper over its lifecycle than that and, other than regulatory issues, is basically better in every way.by mattmaroon
2/3/2026 at 4:57:12 PM
There will continue to be new gas plants as long as there are coal plants which will be converted, usually around the time a major overhaul would need to be taken anyway.by prpl
2/3/2026 at 5:39:58 PM
Nuclear might be better and cheaper over it's entire lifecycle; but given that the starting costs are so high, the time to build is so long, and the US has serious problems with cost overruns in public projects, as well as the fickleness of both government and public opinion, I don't expect another plant to be built.by jerlam
2/3/2026 at 4:53:58 PM
> nuclear is far cheaper over its lifecycle than thatThat is the case for base load generation, where the plant can operate near 100% capacity all the time. But that isn't were gas is usually being deployed; it being used for reserve generation. The economics of nuclear isn't as favourable in that application as it costs more or less the same to run at partial generation, or even no generation, as it does when it is going full blast.
by 9rx
2/3/2026 at 5:48:46 PM
The closest I've gotten to somebody finding environmental regulations that were driving up the cost of nuclear was with some of the latest stuff with people trying to get rid of the LNT model of how radiation affects people.Getting rid of LNT would allow higher doses to workers, and the way it makes nuclear cheaper is by having less shielding around the reactor.
But if you look at how recent reactors like the AP1000 failed, it's not so much because of the mere quantity of concrete. In fact, one of the big advantages of the AP1000 is that it used a fraction of the concrete and steel of prior designs. The real problem at Vogtle were construction logistics, matching up design to constructible plans, and doing that all in an efficient manner.
The construction process didn't run over budget and over timeline because of environmental regulations, that happened because we don't know how to build big things anymore, in combination with leadership asking for regulatory favors like starting construction before everything has been fully designed, which gave them more rope to hang themselves with.
I don't know the specifics of why France forgot how to build, at Flamanville and Olkiluoto, but I imagine it's a similar tale as in the US. High labor costs, poor logistics, projects dragged out, and having to pay interest on the loan for years and years extra with every delay.
If there's somebody with more specifics on how unnecessary regulation is killing nuclear, I'd love to see it. But after watching attentively and with great interest since ~2005, I've become so disillusioned with nuclear that I doubt we'll ever see it have success in the West again. Factories and manufacturing have seen productivity go through the roof over the past 50 years, while construction productivity is stagnant. Playing to our strengths, and using our very limited construction capacity on building factories rather than building generators, seems far wiser on the macroeconomic scale.
by epistasis
2/3/2026 at 10:32:06 PM
The £700M (960M USD) spent on fish protection measures at Hinkley Point C would be a topical example [1]. It's expected to save an average of a few hundred twaite shad, six river lamprey, and eighteen allis shad per year, plus one salmon every twelve years, and a trout every thirty-six years.https://www.salmonbusiness.com/nuclear-plants-new-700-millio...
by slavik81
2/3/2026 at 10:59:48 PM
The article you linked says "According to a government-commissioned review, Hinkley Point C’s suite of “fish protection measures” will cost more than £700 million".I spent 10 minutes and have not been able to find said "government-commissioned review". Is this even true?
by triceratops
2/4/2026 at 1:07:11 AM
Edit: here's Guardian reporting on the report cited by Salmon Business https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/12/health-and-... . As somebody who has spent nearly all of my political activity in the past 8 years trying to change local regulations to allow more housing, the whole thing reeks of unfair analysis on all sides and hyper-partisanship. I largely think there should be a more rational evaluation of requirements all around, but it does sound like the 44 tons of killed fish per year is pretty small compared to other human impact, but $700M is not going to save Hinkley Point C.The stilted phrasing in the report from Salmon Business definitely does not sound very credible, but marine life protection is definitely a real thing with nuclear and all fuel-burning electricity generation
The vast quantities of water needed to cool nuclear (for every kWh of electricity, 2 kWh of waste heat must be discarded) can have significant impacts on wildlife. In the past, we just devastated ecosystems but most modern countries decided they didn't want to do that anymore.
This is not a nuclear regulation, it's a "thermal plant" regulation, it's just that nuclear needs more cooling than, say, combined-cycle gas because nuclear's lower temperatures are less efficient at converting heat to electricity.
At a mere $700M, even dropping all marine life mitigations from Hinkley Point C wouldn't help much with affordability. If they could drop $7B of costs from Hinkley then it may start to have a halfway-competitive price, but it still wouldn't be very attractive.
by epistasis
2/4/2026 at 1:26:45 AM
Thanks!by triceratops
2/3/2026 at 4:02:30 PM
There's certainly some "environmentalism" out there that's using the banner of the environment for other ends.Here's one example: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-02/california-...
I mostly agree with you, but it is worth paying attention to the details.
by davidw
2/3/2026 at 4:25:11 PM
This article doesn't speak to me. What I read is, "Won't someone think of the poor UC system?" But the UC system is _massive_> But Casa Joaquin’s neighboring, overwhelmingly white homeowners could have used CEQA to demand costly studies and multiple hearings before Berkeley officials.
Important to note that white people are well-represented at UC Berkley too. https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley-quick-facts
> More recently, a series of court rulings that culminated last year nearly forced Berkeley to withhold admission of thousands of high school seniors...
Graduating high-school seniors are also known as incoming freshman or legal adults.
> ... because the state’s judges agreed with NIMBY neighborhood groups that population growth is an inherent environmental impact under CEQA.
Ok, let's see how big the UC school system is...
> The University maintains approximately 6,000 buildings enclosing 137 million gross square feet on approximately 30,000 acres across its ten campuses, five medical centers, nine agricultural research and extension centers, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2017/chapt...
I'm not seeing evidence that protestors were primarily NIMBYs and pesky white homeowners. I can find several articles citing _student_ protests.
> “It’s students who set up People’s Park in the first place, so it’s our place to defend it,” said Athena Davis, a first-year student at UC Berkeley who spoke at the rally. “It’s up to students to reject the idea that our housing needs to come at the price of destroying green space and homes for the marginalized.”
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/01/30/protesters-tear-down...
by bevr1337
2/3/2026 at 4:46:50 PM
They're talking about using environmental rules to block homes for people to live in, inside cities.Using land efficiently in walkable places is one of the most environmentally friendly things we can be doing, and supposed "environmentalists" sought to block it using "environmental" rules!
If that's not NIMBYism to you, you have blinders on.
by davidw
2/3/2026 at 5:24:36 PM
I didn't say there was NO NIMBYs, but that this article suggests NIMBYs were the primary protestors. That doesn't seem truthful. Additionally, the UC system does have a large impact on the environment.I'm sure there are better examples to illustrate your point
> homes for people to live in
Student housing. Which likely means partially-furnished studios with shared bathrooms and a kitchenette at best. This isn't the useful housing folks are asking for.
by bevr1337
2/3/2026 at 5:45:20 PM
It's pretty useful to the students!That kind of "wait, no, not THAT kind of housing, not HERE" is textbook NIMBYism.
There may have been some student protestors, but the money behind the legal challenges were all wealthy local NIMBYs.
by davidw
2/3/2026 at 5:33:40 PM
I would just say that NIMBYS that weaponize environmental regulation for purposes it wasn't written for aren't environmentalists.by breakyerself
2/3/2026 at 5:38:15 PM
That's a great hypothetical, but it's not supported by the article. There are claims that NIMBYs are doing this or that, but follow the links to the supplementary articles and it's baseless. I only find evidence that students and homeless protested. Those aren't NIMBY homeowners.To me, it seems UC wants to bulldoze a park famous for homeless camps and replace it with student housing. Pro-development is trying to cast the UC expansion in the same light as folks asking for affordable housing. But, UC is not providing useful housing for residents of Berkley.
by bevr1337
2/3/2026 at 5:44:28 PM
Fortunately, this egregious nonsense lead to the CEQA rules being modified so that NIMBYs like these can't weaponize them so easily in situations like this.https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/06/ceqa-urban-developmen...
by davidw
2/3/2026 at 5:53:22 PM
CEQA is pretty universally considered a disaster.The alternative is not to have no environmental regulation. California could copy the regulations of any of the 49 other states and be much better off.
by BurningFrog
2/3/2026 at 7:16:51 PM
>California could copy the regulations of any of the 49 other states and be much better off.Says whom?
California has a huge population. California has a massive water shortage problem. California has wide areas vulnerable to wildfires. California has piles of small ecosystems that are fragile and can be easily wiped out.
Saying California could copy some states like Iowas regulations makes negative sense.
by pixl97
2/3/2026 at 8:30:34 PM
The major problems with CEQA are:- the extreme cost and time spent on mandatory Environmental Impact Reports
- it allows pretty much anyone to sue projects over just about anything, which can also add many years before projects can start
None of this has anything to do with California specific environmental concerns
by BurningFrog
2/3/2026 at 6:07:40 PM
> If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than goodIn Massachusetts you can't clear shoreline. Specifically, if you buy waterfront property on a pond / lake, you can't clear the shoreline to make a beach in your backyard. You can only use what used to be there before the law was passed. There's even restrictions on building close to shorelines, so if you want to build, you need to find an existing building and renovate.
Now, I'm not a wetland expert, so maybe someone will chime in and tell me why every inch of freshwater shoreline must be undisturbed. But I like freshwater swimming and suspect that we can allocate some space for human recreation.
by gwbas1c
2/4/2026 at 1:40:07 AM
> Now, I'm not a wetland expert, so maybe someone will chime in and tell me why every inch of freshwater shoreline must be undisturbed. But I like freshwater swimming and suspect that we can allocate some space for human recreation.Are you prevented from fresh water swimming because you can't fabricate a beach for yourself, even if you own the property next to it? Seems like a strange complaint
by brailsafe
2/3/2026 at 8:24:31 PM
>Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated.Ok, strong example here: the long term efforts to stop forest fires caused build up of fuel that should have burned up in small fires which then instead burned up ecosystems which evolved for small forest fires and instead were destroyed in large ones.
That's a well intentioned environmental policy that had terrible effects.
Fuel efficiency programs with the goal of reducing emissions with exceptions for work vehicles killed small trucks and meant a ton of people who do approximately 0 work drive around enormous vehicles that were designed big to match the exception criteria.
That's another one.
Ethanol to replace gasoline is also an enormous negative consequence waste that started as an environmental program.
Things don't just work because you want them to and programs aren't automatically right because of what they intend to do.
Far too many people argue for things they don't understand at all because of the surface intention of them and treat discussion about them blasphemy. (I chose uncontroversial negative examples because I don't want to get sidetracked into arguments about my examples with zealots)
by colechristensen
2/3/2026 at 4:09:45 PM
what kind of common sense wisdom are we talking about here, can you give an example? understanding the impact of regulation designed to impact both the environment and the economy, two incredibly complex systems our experts are only beginning to understand, isn't generally a matter of common senseby lacunary
2/3/2026 at 4:21:42 PM
The common sense wisdom I'm referring to is that environmental regulation is in general bad or does more harm than good.That's an opinion I encounter constantly and it's a meme that was manufactured in PR company meeting rooms, right wing think tanks, and neo-classical economists theoretical models of how the world works.
by breakyerself
2/3/2026 at 4:25:14 PM
Nah some environmental regulation is batshit.Literally, in the UK you can’t build if there’s a protected bat species in the area.
by coob
2/3/2026 at 8:32:45 PM
This is not true, there is just a specific protocol you have follow to do the building work. Yes it increases costs, but it doesn't explicitly prevent them.by __alexs
2/3/2026 at 4:35:06 PM
Why do you think that is batshit?by NicuCalcea
2/3/2026 at 5:22:05 PM
Guanoby aaronblohowiak
2/3/2026 at 4:21:43 PM
How do you explain the bug up its ass that the EPA has about auto racing?by busterarm
2/3/2026 at 4:36:32 PM
Congress should pass the RPM act and exempt race cars from the clean air act. I never said you can't cherry pick individual problems with environmental regulation.I just don't like the general attitude that because you can find something to disagree with that environmental regulation as a general rule is bad. It isn't.
There are thousands and thousands of pages of environmental regulations. Obviously people are going to be able to find some things that need to be revisited, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Nothing should be repealed without evidence and in many cases amendments are more prudent than repeals.
by breakyerself
2/3/2026 at 4:42:26 PM
At the same time I'm sick of people facing no consequences for modifying their diesel pickups to blow black clouds of smoke on their fellow citizens.by breakyerself
2/3/2026 at 5:50:29 PM
Bro I can't go out without some diesel pickup rolling coal. If anything auto standards need to be higher because people aren't adult enough to follow the 'not for public roads use' model.by _DeadFred_
2/3/2026 at 4:30:10 PM
Except, you know, NEPA.by loeg
2/3/2026 at 2:41:41 PM
It's really easy to sit and demand evidence before regulating something. But consider that if we waited for hard evidence to accumulate before banning lead in gasoline, we likely never would have banned it because the hard evidence wouldn't exist.I also don't agree on the principle that regulations are "harmful" or "helpful." Rather, you have to define who the regulation harms, and who it helps. For example antitrust enforcement harms shareholders and some employees of very large firms, but it helps many employees and arguably improves the landscape for competition between many smaller firms. So whether a regulation is preferable comes down to values.
In the case of leaded gas, it harms basically everybody, but it helps fuel companies, so it was an easy thing to change.
by throwway120385
2/3/2026 at 3:09:59 PM
We had research to support the EPA phase down of lead.Also, your assertion that lead “helps fuel companies” is fundamentally mistaken. Gasoline is a mass-produced commodity. Oil companies have single digit profit margins. These companies aren’t making Big Tech profit margins where they can absorb higher costs without passing them along to consumers. Cost savings from things like gasoline additives accrue to consumers at the gas pump.
by rayiner
2/3/2026 at 3:28:43 PM
Until the price of gas starts to remotely reflect the medium to long term costs of climate change I basically always celebrate anything that increases gas or carbon-based energy prices. Like, it sucks... but there's lots of data that consumers respond to these prices in their choices.The way I think about it, the entirety of global civilization is massively, massively subsidizing carbon emission.
by empyrrhicist
2/3/2026 at 3:43:12 PM
I agree. I’m just addressing the notion raised in the post above that oil companies will bear cost increases in an industry where everyone sells an identical product and consumers can just cross the street to save $0.10 a gallon.by rayiner
2/3/2026 at 3:38:23 PM
Do you know of any research or calculations of what that number ought to be?by DiggyJohnson
2/3/2026 at 3:58:51 PM
If you wanted to pay for direct air capture of CO2 to directly "undo" your climate effect of driving, the cost would currently be about $6 per gallon. Price comes from [1], found [2] looking for a second opinion on current direct air capture cost.[1] https://theclimatecapitalist.com/articles/gas-should-cost-13... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/phildeluna/2024/11/29/will-dire...
by Cerium
2/3/2026 at 4:06:07 PM
I wonder whether those methods scale at those prices to the theoretical demand of undoing burning gasoline. I doubt it.by adrianN
2/3/2026 at 3:26:33 PM
Lead helped fuel company profits because it was cheaper than the other anti-knock additives, like ethanol.by jhallenworld
2/3/2026 at 3:38:23 PM
That's true, and without any legislation or such prohibiting lead they would most likely have continued to use it as anyone who would have phased out lead would have been at a competitive disadvantage. But once it was banned, everybody was again on an even playing field, and as OP explained fuel is a commodity so the higher cost just flowed through to the end user prices, refinery margins stayed about where they were.by jabl
2/3/2026 at 3:29:55 PM
In an industry where everyone sells a completely fungible product such cost savings generally are passed on to consumers. Oil companies can profit in the short term due to fluctuations in the price of oil and things like that, but not from something like lead additives, which everyone had been using for decades.by rayiner
2/3/2026 at 4:33:20 PM
If the end product ends up marginally cheaper, the company will be able to sell more of it, and this will lead to more profit. And sure, when you ignore the cost of the pollution, this certainly benefits the consumer, by allowing them to afford more energy and energy-based products (i.e., just about everything).But then we come back to ignoring the cost of the pollution. It certainly gets paid for eventually, but by who? Also, it's cheaper for everyone if the pollution is eliminated to begin with rather than being cleaned up later (which is certainly a more energy intensive endeavor).
by jhallenworld
2/3/2026 at 4:02:35 PM
I think you're missing the point -- the point is that gasoline companies KNEW ABOUT alternative lead-free substitutes for anti-knock (such as ethanol) and chose lead because they perceived it was less profitable. [1] Specifically because ethanol wasn't patentable and TEL was, and ultimately it WAS patented.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...
by zug_zug
2/3/2026 at 4:27:43 PM
It is more than that - lead and ethanol have other properties that engines that use them need to handle. Lead also acted as a lubricant and parts designed for engines that assumed lead fuel were designed with softer valve seats - switch to unleaded with otherwise equal octane and your will destroy the engine. (though experience shows that unless you were driving your car on a race trace most cars worked fine for longer than the car lasted). Ethanol will destroy some forms of rubber and so you need to use different seals in some parts.TEL was patentable, but those patents were long expired before there was a big push to eliminate leaded gas.
by bluGill
2/3/2026 at 4:36:57 PM
Also, TEL being patented by Dow (which isn’t an oil company) actually was a reason oil companies would want to use an alternative, if possible. Why would they want to pay Dow to use a patented product, all else being equal?by rayiner
2/3/2026 at 4:33:47 PM
They picked lead because it was the cheapest additive, not because it was more profitable for the industry as a whole. Those two things aren’t the same. In the oil industry, the products are identical and companies compete only on price. If you use the $0.10 per gallon additive when everyone else is using the $0.05 per gallon additive, then your sales collapse because customers just cross the street to save $0.05 per gallon. But if every company switches to the $0.05 gallon additive, that doesn’t mean the companies pocket the extra $0.05 per gallon. Most of that goes to the consumer, because, again, consumers can just cross the street to get the better price.It’s really a collective action problem. Nobody wants their gasoline to be more expensive than other companies’. So everyone has the incentive to use the cheapest ingredient. If you ban that ingredient, prices go up. But since everyone's prices will go up, you remove the competitive disadvantage.
by rayiner
2/3/2026 at 4:33:41 PM
I think you're missing the point. Without a market-coordinating motivation (i.e., legislation), any company that adopted a more expensive anti-knock would be competed out of the market.by loeg
2/3/2026 at 4:20:28 PM
Ethanol has a propensity to suck up ambient moisture and is more demanding of rubbers and happily attacks aluminum.In an age of natural rubber components, poorly sealed fuel systems with steel tanks and aluminum carburetors pretty much anything other than ethanol is the "right choice".
And once they ruled out ethanol they settled on lead because it was cheap/profitable. Obviously they chose wrong, they should've picked something more expensive but less terrible.
These weren't cartoon villains with monocles twirling their mustaches. They were normal humans making pragmatic decisions based on the constraints they faced. Without knowing the details people cannot understand what future similar fact patterns may look like.
That said, it should be no surprise to anyone that nobody wants to talk about "well we don't know how bad the harm of leaded exhaust is, we know it's not good, but it's diffuse and undefined so we'll round it to zero/negligible" type decision making, for that sort of unknown rounds to zero logic underpins in whole or part all manner of modern policy discourse.
by cucumber3732842
2/3/2026 at 9:48:26 PM
>Ethanol has a propensity to suck up ambient moisture and is more demanding of rubbers and happily attacks aluminum.Actually, moisture problems are from using things like homemade alcohol or alcohol from unknown sources, where the likelihood of it already containing a sizable percentage of water has been a problem since the Model T days.
And if that water has a bit of an aggressive pH, it can have an effect on aluminum components.
This is just not a problem with gasoline-alcohol blends from reputable suppliers unless there is serious failure in the supply chain after that, where any fuel would have been contaminated by water regardless. The fuel-grade alcohol is tested before it is added, then the finished gasoline fully analyzed afterward.
Neither moisture nor corrosion is a problem with fuel ethanol or methanol, and when you see convincing information to the contrary (like from a pro mechanic) it often originates from misguided sources, "old wives' tales" for which actual evidence existed without being well-understood. But sometimes the most professional are the ones who don't take any chances, whether "common knowledge" is factual or not, if it doesn't hurt, no big deal.
Miscellaneous polymer compounds were the real question for cars that were not originally made for modern alcohol mixtures.
Ethanol just doesn't absorb moisture into your fuel tank by itself, even from a very humid environment.
Not any more than plain hydrocarbon fuel. In old ventilated fuel tanks, extreme temperature cycling under very humid conditions draws moist air into the tank when the fuel shrinks or is consumed. Kilos of cold fuel and cold metal can continue to condense moisture from the air, when the dew point is greater than the temperature of the tank. After a while you can get grams or ounces of water rolling around in the bottom of the tank. This could build up and stall out the vehicle or keep it from starting.
If it was only an ounce or two of water at the bottom of the tank full of all hydrocarbons, it would actually help to add a gallon of plain (good) alcohol to help dissolve the separated water into the gasoline so it can pass through harmlessly like it always has since gasoline has always had trace amounts of water anyway. Condensation is about as clean as rainwater so it's nothing the engine hasn't seen.
When most mechanics see something like this it has already gotten way out of hand, and there have been waves of anti-alcohol propaganda disseminated through time which reinforce the superstitious component.
Another problem from the '80's was when you do first start using alcohol-containing gasoline in an older car, it can break up varnish that has built up in the tank for years which never would come off until some alcohol came along. This could be a few grams, end up clogging the fuel filter, and the car stalls out no different than from water in the fuel line. Direct cause-and-effect relationship undeniably due to the use of alcohol, with many independent observations. Not a water problem, but who's keeping score.
Just not any more of a problem in the 21st century, similar conditions are so rarely encountered now.
by fuzzfactor
2/3/2026 at 6:02:42 PM
The kinda are/wereby _DeadFred_
2/3/2026 at 4:57:36 PM
tetra-ethyl lead helped significantly increase octane, allowing a lower-cost fuel to be used in gasoline engines.by throwway120385
2/3/2026 at 3:56:44 PM
>It's really easy to sit and demand evidence before regulating something. But consider that if we waited for hard evidence to accumulate before banning lead in gasoline, we likely never would have banned it because the hard evidence wouldn't exist.We already knew lead was toxic before we started putting it in gasoline. Even the guy that invented it got sick from exposure and people died from exposure in their plants in the first years of operation. The problem is that we somehow require evidence that something is unsafe but don't require any evidence that its safe in the first place.
by Hikikomori
2/3/2026 at 8:25:54 PM
So we should legislate evidence free based on the vibes of whichever tribe is currently in power?We're doomed.
by colechristensen
2/3/2026 at 2:50:05 PM
Note that the current administration closed its research and science office.https://www.science.org/content/article/blow-environment-epa...
by andychase
2/3/2026 at 2:35:23 PM
Basically everybody agrees with what you're saying which is what makes this an insidious comment.In general the pressure against regulation comes from narrow winners (oil industry for instance) whereas the pressure for regulations generally comes from people focused on the greater good (even if they are misled by other narrow winners, for instance compliance firms).
by AdamN
2/3/2026 at 2:43:19 PM
There are valid reasons to oppose regulations. They can be used to create barriers of entry for small businesses, for example. They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.by gosub100
2/3/2026 at 3:13:59 PM
That is usually the opposite because the absence of regulations usually put the smallest players in a state of dependence of some huge monopolistic groups.Think pesticides and genetically modified plants for example.
by prmoustache
2/3/2026 at 2:56:12 PM
> They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.That’s a very broad statement. I expect there are many cases where that is not true.
by sunshinesnacks
2/3/2026 at 3:07:07 PM
"greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".by abfan1127
2/3/2026 at 3:26:58 PM
Maybe. But the original context here is an article about removing lead from gasoline. Which I’m pretty sure that helped many people based on the “greater good”.There’s no copper sulfate in canned green beans or borax in beef. Those seem all around good.
Let’s agree that impacts of regulations are nuanced, and not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic like, “regulations hurt poor people”.
by sunshinesnacks
2/3/2026 at 6:06:06 PM
When left to their own cigaret companies tell congress cigarettes are safe and non addictive. Left alone companies pay in scrip only usable at the company store.The 'greater good' has arguably PREVENTED much more hurt of people than it has ever hurt. Meanwhile companies have PROVEN time and time again that they WILL hurt people when left to their own devices. In environmental policies. In pay policies. In employment policies. In EVERY aspect possible.
by _DeadFred_
2/3/2026 at 10:33:06 PM
This is the extreme, and it shows how far some (most?) people would go. There are many examples, and more being minted, it can be a drag.Yes, not just environmental, all kinds of money stuff. The more money can be how it gets on steroids.
But this says a lot here:
>not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic
With greed involved you can follow the money to an extent, you find lobbyists on both sides of every controversy, sometimes chalking up wins, other times losses. But they stay in business and grow by compromising the greater good with as little profit loss from those paying them the most.
They might switch roles when they lobby in favor of ordinary citizens one time, and squarely against in a future campaign. But they never actually switch sides, the least costly thing to compromise is the "greater good", which ideally from their point of view is intangible, versus actual money, which their clients are usually counting before they have earned any.
It's politics, all regulations are hard to pass, but as lobbying has increased, the difficulty of having good legislation in favor of the greater good is becoming less possible.
It just costs too much to have a seat at the table.
If people want to have good things, it might become completely dependent on older regulations which were in their favor before it got too expensive to do that any more.
by fuzzfactor
2/3/2026 at 4:17:11 PM
For each instance did it help more than it hurt?Not to simplify but if you have to make a decision shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?
by Braxton1980
2/3/2026 at 4:51:57 PM
> shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?no.
by lowdownbutter
2/3/2026 at 6:56:56 PM
Why?by Braxton1980
2/3/2026 at 8:15:05 PM
Hundreds of book on utilitarianism have been published since Bentham (ca 1800) first argued 'why'. They argue the matter from evey perspective ad nauseam.Check your public library.
by hilbert42
2/4/2026 at 1:04:45 AM
Who shall we sacrifice for the greater good? Shall we sacrifice one child for two elderly? One healthy adult for two sick?by lowdownbutter
2/3/2026 at 2:53:51 PM
Protecting a small company's ability to pollute is not a valid reason.by dfedbeef
2/3/2026 at 4:29:38 PM
Ah the old "it takes longer to learn how to cut hair than it does to become a cop".by busterarm
2/3/2026 at 4:14:31 PM
There are valid reasons to oppose specific regulations not all.Imagine I open a auto repair center and I perform oil changes. It would cost me money to have used oil hauled away or I could dump it down the drain. You probably support a requirement that I pay for the service.
I'm sure there are regulations that cause actual harm to small businesses that have little or no value but I wonder what percentage it would be of the total.
by Braxton1980
2/3/2026 at 3:28:07 PM
We're talking about environmental regulations. It is no more good for a small business to pollute than a large one, and it's precisely the poor who are most harmed by environmental pollution.by LiquidSky
2/3/2026 at 4:26:30 PM
the largest unaccounted for victims of environmental degradation are our children and their children. given that we can't even keep from poisoning our own well water for our own uses today, it really does like on the whole we're failing to regulate sufficiently.which isn't to argue that they shouldn't make sense. or that they should be used to tilt the playing field due to corruption, but on the balance claiming that we are currently overregulated is pretty indefensible.
by convolvatron
2/3/2026 at 2:52:29 PM
Lead is a textbook example of a good regulation. It’s something where the industry was doing something very harmful-aerosolizing lead and pumping it into the air—which had quite small economic benefits and was relatively easily replaced.Some regulation achieves this kind of improvement, and we’re probably under regulated in those areas. Particulate matter, for example, is extremely harmful. But many regulations do not have such clear cut costs and benefits.
by rayiner
2/3/2026 at 3:17:18 PM
Can you tell more about particulate matter ? You mean small particles in the air right, so air pollution right ?by cassepipe
2/3/2026 at 3:45:27 PM
Right but specifically solid particles in the air, not just gasses (CO2, NOX, etc.).For example smoke and soot from combustion or dust particles from tires and brakes.
by stetrain
2/3/2026 at 8:40:21 PM
Sibling comments are good. I'll add that the biggest concern is PM2.5 (particulates smaller than 2.5 micrometers). They're thought to be responsible for 70,000 excess deaths in the U.S. annually, more than homicides or drug overdoses: https://www.stateofglobalair.org/health/pmby rayiner
2/3/2026 at 3:50:25 PM
Particulate matter is relatively large particles, so far as air pollution goes. Think things like soot or smoke, rather than specific chemicals. Burning wood and coal produces far more particulates than, say, natural gas or gasoline-gas.by danlitt
2/3/2026 at 6:01:58 PM
They're not necessarily large, and the worst for humans is small particulate which gets into the bloodstream through lungs, PM2.5.https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.ht...
Breathing in unhealthy levels of PM2.5 can increase the risk of health problems like heart disease, asthma, and low birth weight. Unhealthy levels can also reduce visibility and cause the air to appear hazy.
Outdoor sources include vehicle exhaust, burning wood, gas and other fuels, and fires. Particle pollution can also travel long distances from its source; for example from wildfires hundreds of miles away. Outdoor particle pollution levels are more likely to be higher on days with little or no wind or air mixing.
by freshpots
2/3/2026 at 8:57:41 PM
I agree with everything you wrote. I meant to contrast them with "chemical" air pollution, and 2.5 μm is much larger than a molecule!by danlitt
2/3/2026 at 3:30:11 PM
Yes, it's associated with cancer, heart disease, and dementia.by empyrrhicist
2/3/2026 at 7:57:14 PM
>was relatively easily replaced.It wasn't easily replaced. For many decades there weren't any alternatives for anti-knock additives.
by GeoAtreides
2/3/2026 at 8:34:00 PM
"…there weren't any alternatives for anti-knock additives.".Presumably, you mean there weren't any alternatives for anti-knock additives for around the same price as tetraethyllead.
Octane ratings can be increased sans Pb if needed. Trouble is the extra refining and reduced yield increases costs which consumers weren't prepared to pay for.
by hilbert42
2/3/2026 at 3:09:45 PM
It should be uncontroversial that introducing shit into an environment where it doesn't belong is a bad idea, yet many people remain unconvinced that dumping tons of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere or tons of fertilizer by-products into the oceans is a bad idea.by FatherOfCurses
2/3/2026 at 3:17:02 PM
It's less that but rather the hypocrisy of promoting burdensome regulations and bans implemented in one county (e.g. Germany) which hurts domestic industry and raises costs for its citizens, all while being silent on countries like China and India continuing to massively build more and more coal fired power plantsby nxm
2/3/2026 at 3:56:12 PM
1. Germany industrialized 100 years before China. It's been burning large quantities of coal for far longer.2. Germany or at least the EU can and should impose a carbon fee on imports related to a given nations carbon emissions/reductions.
3. Economically transitioning to renewables is better for a nations economy than continuing to burn fossil fuels anyway. Renewables are cheaper.
Pointing to another bad actor as an excuse to continue to be a bad actor we learn is not a moral position somewhere around 5 years old.
by breakyerself
2/3/2026 at 7:24:52 PM
I will say on point one, the rate which a country can scale usage throws this off. For example the first 50 years of Germany's usage likely represents far less than a current Chinese year of usage.by pixl97
2/3/2026 at 9:23:22 PM
We saw this happen with the Montreal Protocol over CFCs/greehouse gases when everyone went mad and banned just about every fluorocarbon known to science.This was a case of zealotry and overregulation egged on by puritanical ideologs without full consideration of the consequences.
We correctly banned fluorocarbons as refrigerants in systems where they would not be properly recycled, such as domestic refrigerators, air-conditioning systems incuding those in vehicles, and like. This made for good regulation, and it made sense.
The volume of CFCs with other specislist applications was miniscule by comparison, and for most of these recovery, capture and recycle systems along with protocols for use could have been implemented.
Instead, we stupidy put an outright ban on just about every CFC in sight, many of which have no direct equivalents that are anywhere near as effective as CFCs, and many are dangerous and inflammable and form explosive mixtures with air.
Right, in one fell swoop we banned many of the most useful chemicals ever invented. Little wonder these's now a backlash to overregulation. If Montreal were to be repeated today the zealots would have to take more of a backseat.
by hilbert42
2/3/2026 at 3:38:06 PM
Unfortunately there is hypocrisy to go around. Here's the argument China and India will use: "coal and fossil fuel always was for all its history and still is the largest portion of Germany's energy mix. It's hardly in a position to ask other countries to stop.""China and India have the right to industrialize themselves using the same tools Western countries have used. China is leading the world in alternative energy manufacturing making clean energy profitable and India is the 4th largest renewable energy producer."
by dlisboa
2/3/2026 at 11:03:33 PM
China's carbon emissions decreased last year. They build more renewables than anyone else.If India and China build coal plants, it's because they have coal. If they had natural gas, like the US, they'd build natural gas plants.
by triceratops
2/3/2026 at 4:09:17 PM
China is also building more renewables than everyone else combined.by adrianN
2/3/2026 at 3:50:42 PM
[dead]by MuskIsAntidemo
2/3/2026 at 5:39:42 PM
You've just shifted the disagreement into a debate about whether the particular shit does or does not belong in the particular place.by recursive
2/3/2026 at 2:49:36 PM
Who is proposing for environment regulation without proper scientific evidence? You both sided the argument without giving any claims about environment regulation that turned out to be not helpful.by mktk1001
2/4/2026 at 2:33:50 AM
Are you aware of scientific evidence that supports mandating paper drinking straws?by cfiggers
2/3/2026 at 2:58:22 PM
Maybe ten comments below you there is someone stating "environmental regulations are a win."No qualifiers whatsoever. All environmental regulations are good as far as this person is concerned.
by lingrush4
2/3/2026 at 3:17:48 PM
good but at what cost is the issue and who bears that costby nxm
2/3/2026 at 6:29:13 PM
That's why the people that would rather policy be based on their personal interests work so hard to discredit all data and the scientific method so that you can't even have that conversation.by tracerbulletx
2/3/2026 at 2:59:35 PM
Your tone suggests you think they are generally not based on science and given cost benefit analysis. Probably a reflection of your media intake.In 1981 Reagan made cost benefit analysis a requirement for EPA.
For example in 1984: the EPA " estimates that the benefits of reducing lead in gasoline would exceed the costs by more than 300 percent.... These benefits include improved health of children and others"
Trump has just scrapped the requirement to cost in human health.
I wonder if removing lead would meet the new standard.
by ZeroGravitas
2/3/2026 at 7:27:29 PM
Aren't you just waving a flag for less regulation by rushing to align yourself with this inarguable example of regulatory success? Rather than discussing the issue of what impact lead had, or how we might apply this longitudinal method to other other problems (making hair archives into a general environmental data resource), or develop longitudinal methods in general, You've chosen to issue a clarion calla gainst 'bad regulation'.Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected.
....nobody was arguing this. It's a classic straw man fallacy. Further, you're leveraging a lot of emotional terms while providing zero examples, inviting potential sympathetic readers to just project their feelings onto any regulations they happen to dislike rather than establish any sort of objective criteria or lay out any map/model of regulatory credibility that could be subject to challenge or criticism.
by anigbrowl
2/3/2026 at 4:10:55 PM
> while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated.Prove it.
by soperj
2/3/2026 at 10:50:46 PM
I have proven it to my own satisfaction. It's a pretty trivial proof. I'm sure you could derive your own, if you tried.How's this: if, at some point, it seems to me that your agreement would benefit me or advance something I care about, I promise I'll consider trying to convince you.
by cfiggers
2/3/2026 at 11:01:07 PM
"trust me bro"by soperj
2/3/2026 at 5:05:00 PM
> while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated.Which "other" regulations are harmful and what harm are they doing?
by MisterTea
2/3/2026 at 3:30:04 PM
give me an example of EPA regulation that needs to be eliminatedby css_apologist
2/3/2026 at 7:09:39 PM
> some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminatedYou're right. Off the top of my head, the stupidest environmental regulation I can think of right now is the banning of plastic straws. It's such a minuscule amount of plastic used compared to the mountains of bags and packaging used in general commerce and industry.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting our environment. I just believe in evidence-based policy and setting priorities correctly. After all, money, labor, and attention are finite resources.
by nayuki
2/3/2026 at 5:40:46 PM
> In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated.This would be a reasonable centrist opinion, if there existed environmental regulations that do more harm than good!
Actually, I do know of one, in California, that does both harm and good and the harmful parts need to be reigned in. CEQA in California was expanded by courts after it was passed to cover all sorts of things that weren't intended by the authors. CEQA is not so much an "environmental" law as it is a "perform some massive studies law" as it doesn't really regulate anything in particular.
Mostly it serves as a route to use the courts to delay projects, largely housing in already-built-out areas. By delaying a project's approval with a court lawsuit for 2-3 years, the preliminary financing runs out, the cost of owning land without doing anything with it runs out, so projects can be scuttled without the validity of the lawsuit every being evaluated by courts.
Instead of this sort of legal courtroom process that takes long and indeterminate amounts of time, CEQA should be replaced with strict and very clear definitions of harm, or at least move the more subjective parts into a science-based regulatory body that provides answers an a short timeline that can not be dragged on indefinitely.
> Regulations are not people, and they don't have rights.
This is a very weird turn of the phrase "corporations aren't people," because there actually are highly influential politicians that made the case that corporations are people. Nobody is saying that regulations are people. That's silly.
The regulations we need to get rid of are not "environmental" regulations, they are "rent seeking" regulations that allow entrenched interests to prevent disruption by smaller interests. CEQA is not a problem because its an environmental regulation, it's a problem because it's a tool NIMBYs use to get results that are worse for the environment.
by epistasis
2/3/2026 at 5:03:47 PM
> It is fair and reasonable to demand that environmental regulation justify its existence with hard, scientifically verifiable data or else get choppedHere is a strawman for you: studies for regulation A show that it is successfull in improving habitat for endangered species. Studies also show that the regulation increases tax burden and decreases competitiveness of national agriculture.
Should the regulation be chopped?
by jcattle
2/3/2026 at 4:29:35 PM
Put more broadly, we should, you know, enact good laws and repeal bad ones. No major political party has a monopoly on good, or bad, legislation.by loeg
2/3/2026 at 6:06:54 PM
> It is fair and reasonable to demand that environmental regulation justify its existence with hard, scientifically verifiable data or else get chopped.This sounds good as a general default, but there are differences of approach. The US, for example, tends to be more permissive with new chemicals while the EU tends to take a more precautionary approach. Which is better on the whole, weighing the various competing goods, I don't know. I generally favor health over economic prowess, however.
> a manipulative political maneuver
Yes, under the pretext of concern for the environment. There are well-known cases where the political opposition will commission a bogus ecological studies to stifle construction projects they either don't agree with or as a petty way to simply make the ruling party appear less successful. And naturally, the ecological study will find something, as virtually no major construction project will leave the environment unaltered, which is not to say seriously or irretrievable damaged.
by lo_zamoyski
2/3/2026 at 5:39:27 PM
This sounds nice, but in the context of actual politics it's completely meaningless.It's like saying that some people are dangerous criminals who need to be locked up, and other people are upstanding citizens who should be free to live their lives. Everybody would agree with this. The disagreement is in how you sort people. What category encompasses someone who belongs to the opposing political party? That sort of thing.
Regulation should definitely be justified by scientific data. Who gets to determine what's enough? Who gets to determine what counts? Leaded gasoline is a great example. It was pretty well understood when it was introduced that lead was hazardous and dumping a bunch of it into the atmosphere was unwise. But this was evaded, denied, and suppressed for decades.
Even today, it's not settled. Lead is still used in aviation gasoline in the US. It's being phased out, but it's been in the process of phasing out for a couple of decades and there seems to be no urgency in it.
You'll find plenty of people disagreeing with pretty clearly beneficial environmental regulations because in their view those regulations are not supported by the data. They would completely agree with your statement, while saying that pollution from coal power plants is no big deal, climate change is a myth, etc.
by wat10000
2/3/2026 at 8:06:39 PM
There definitely is urgency to phase out leaded aviation gasoline. The FAA is proposing that we phase it out by 2030 - just 4 years from now - even though we still haven't agreed on which of the 3 competing gas blends to standardize on, the pumping infrastructure only exists at a small number of airports, and even though there's still open concerns about them causing engine damage.They just published a draft version of the transition plan here: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/draft_unleaded_avgas...
by tjohns
2/3/2026 at 8:44:07 PM
Leaded gasoline for cars started phasing out 52 years ago. It was fully banned 30 years ago. If there was any urgency behind getting rid of leaded avgas it would have been gone in that timeframe.The FAA started looking at it 14 years ago. They planned to finish phasing it out in 2023. Three years after that, leaded avgas remains ubiquitous, and there's a plan to finish phasing it out in six years. (The 2030 date excludes Alaska, which is planned for 2032.) That's not what urgency looks like.
by wat10000
2/3/2026 at 10:52:29 PM
Cars don't need high octane fuel, aircraft do. Outside of the absolute smallest aircraft, you can't get enough power out of automobile gasoline.They started looking at it 14 years ago, but there's been tons of bureaucratic roadblocks that have impeded progress. (Depending on who you ask, the petroleum companies were responsible for some of these.)
Even today, there are reports that the new unleaded avgas formulations cause engine damage, and we don't entirely know why that's happening. So there's still technical issues to work out. (But it's important, so folks are trying to solve them as quickly as possible.)
by tjohns
2/4/2026 at 1:02:59 AM
"They started looking at it 14 years ago" is all you need to see that there's no urgency. They should have started looking at it 60+ years ago when it first started being a prominent issue for cars. It's not like they didn't know about the problem.All of that stuff could have been overcome a lot faster if there had been motivation to do so. What they should have done is declare, with plenty of advance warning (say, 10 years), that leaded avgas was going to become illegal when leaded car gas became illegal in 1996. If you want to keep flying, figure out how to do it without lead.
The reason it's taking ages is because the FAA just doesn't care that much. The EPA hasn't pushed on it very much. The FAA's priority is minimizing the impact to aviation, not protecting the public from lead pollution, so as long as the EPA doesn't push them, the FAA is content to take things very slow.
Put it on a shorter timeline and solutions would happen faster. Some of those solutions might involve some aircraft being retired due to not being viable in an unleaded world. The FAA doesn't want that, but it should have been done.
by wat10000
2/3/2026 at 4:05:20 PM
>Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected.I'm aware of political parties and politicians who make statements similar to "We have too many regulations" or "stop big government" I'm not aware of opposite.
by Braxton1980
2/3/2026 at 6:58:27 PM
You've never heard a politician say, "When I'm Mayor/Governor/President, we're going to make [x] [stop/start] doing [y]"?by cfiggers
2/3/2026 at 2:50:53 PM
> some environmental regulations work [...] while other [..] do more harm than goodYou are (deliberately?) overlooking the elephant in the room: lobbies with money can distort the discussion.
Big tobacco knew for decades that smoking was bad but still managed to block restrictions in smoking. Oil companies knew lead was poisoning. Purdue knew Oxycontin was addicting. Facebook knows their product is toxic.
by diego_moita