Comment by some_random
3 months ago
Did you read the article? The very first example is about taking 4 years to decide which regulatory framework applied to their carbon sequestration process. Does that seem acceptable to you? Again, that wasn't to actually complete the regulatory review to determine that it was safe, that only took 14 months, that 4 years was just arguing over which of three permits applied to them.
It's not "just trust me bro", the entire point of the article is that there are costs to doing nothing that regulators refuse to accept. It's the same thing with drug trials actually, we need testing for very obvious reasons but every day that lifesaving drugs are stuck in testing and review is another day that they aren't saving or improving the lives of patients. There is a tradeoff.
> that 4 years was just arguing over which of three permits applied to them.
sounds like an average legal case for a business at this level, yes.
I'm all for overhauling the legal system and the meaning of "speedy trials", but the enforcement of regulations that seems tangential to if regulations are good/bad/over/under.
The entire point of the article is that this timeline is utterly unacceptable, and honestly if you disagree then I don't really care about any of your other opinions.