respaaaaaj

respaaaaaj t1_j9l7eux wrote

Yeah why mine in the richest parts of the world where environmental protection laws are strong and prevention and cleanup technology is easily accessible when you can do it in poor countries where none of those things are true but no one in rich countries gives a shit about what happens to the people there

6

respaaaaaj t1_j5u0ek4 wrote

CMP's billing system seems to be both understaffed and way out of date and they just pass as much of fixing it as possible to the customer and the customers banks.

2

respaaaaaj t1_j5rg8vk wrote

I think that Mills forced them to give us a better deal yes.

That being said I don't think CMP is benevolent, I think that the fossil fuel companies funding the opposition fo to the corridor are malevolent and are acting because they don't want more green energy competing with their oil and natural gas plants in New England including Maine.

And between the two I think Texas based fossil fuel companies are more malevolent than Avangrid yes.

I'm not pro CMP, I'm anti fossil fuel industry

5

respaaaaaj t1_j5r5hwb wrote

They don't set supply prices, but you're right there is a group with a major interest in limiting competition and price gouging, the natural gas and fossil fuel companies that funded the anti corridor campaign.

Remember when they ran ads saying that the corridor deal "might save Mainers as little as cents per month"?

1

respaaaaaj t1_j5bawbi wrote

I guess that would depend on what you consider long term, because things like zoning, environmental protections (of any kind), fishery and wildlife management, infrastructure, tax credits aimed at promoting particular kinds of buildings products vehicles home upgrades (heat pumps extra insulation windows that retain more heat) etc are all what I'd call long term just off the top of my head.

3

respaaaaaj t1_j5b81la wrote

Yes government policy needs to balance short and long term interests, but the biggest issue is that attempts at short term reductions in costs of housing frequently backfire and either don't help short term and hurt long term or just straight up hurt both. This shit should have been addressed 5 to 10 years ago, but the best that can realistically be done is start on it now. (And it doesn't take 10 to 20 years for newly built housing to impact housing, nor does it take 10 to 20 years to build new housing).

1

respaaaaaj t1_j5b6gxm wrote

The issue with that is that short term measures to bring down on existing housing costs (rent control, limiting short term rentals second homes etc) discourages construction and frequently leads to landlords going condo potential driving rent up or at least availability down while also preventing the long term cost reduction that more construction brings.

1

respaaaaaj t1_j52t061 wrote

It's not even 25% inflation, last I saw something like 53 million hens have died or been culled, the last time we had a outbreak like this it was more like 50 million by the time it was under control which it isn't yet.

I looked again and it's up to 58 million

24