I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. If nitrogen and water are OK, then the directive is plainly wrong. What else would be OK? And how would we make that decision?
> I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means.
classic bad-faith interpretation, using the classic bad-faith slogan. No, you’re not “just trying to understand” anything, and GP is absolutely correct about that.
We are not dying for content here without your “hurr durr don’t you know water is a chemical posts, and we generally try to maintain a higher level of discourse here. Maybe try Reddit instead.
Please see the site rules about using the most generous possible interpretation of a comment, and if you actually have something to contribute then maybe try again.
The comment that spurred this conversation did claim that the problem was overly complicated legislation to a simple problem. "Don't dump chemicals" is about as good a solution as "don't do bad things". You can't oversimplify a complex issue like that and expect to get anywhere.
I'm being plenty charitable in assuming you're arguing in good faith, at first glance your comment comes off as anti-intellectual value signalling, which will never ever solve anything. Ever.
But this is HN, so I'm going to assume you've simply misunderstood the concern, as anti intellectualism has no place here.
How about anhydrous ammonia? Or phosphate? I’m sorry, but there is no generous interpretation of “don’t dump chemicals on land.” It’s an empty statement that amounts to little more than value signaling. And it was presented with righteous indignation. I thought it best to counter that extreme position with obvious and irrefutable exceptions in an effort to open the door to a more thoughtful conversation. Unfortunately, on environmental issues, it seems for some there is only dogma.