[breakyerself]

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amended, but do you want to go back to polluted air and water just because a small minority of regulations need to be repealed or amended?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?

[derektank]

>do you want to go back to polluted air and water just because a small minority of regulations need to be repealed or amended?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.

[breakyerself]

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.

[spongebobstoes]

current environmental regulations act to slow progress on solar power installation

we 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

[mapt]

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.