- Jul 19, 2020
In the short term? Not at all. The cost associated to most of these restrictions is more from the equipment needed to meet those needs - once you've got it, dropping the requirements doesn't really help. In the long term, building new facilities would be significantly cheaper on paper. In practice, nobody in their right mind would actually build to the loosened restrictions - you know for an absolute fact they'll flip the script as soon as they're not desperate and you'll get fined out the ass for all the profit you might have made for daring to have an eco-unfriendly facility.How much would it help if 90% of environmental restrictions were lifted? Basically all stuff save for lead in food and dumping factory waste into the drinking water/farmland?
Just curious how that would effect non pozzed places like India if they didn't need to worry about carbon taxes.
Nobody trusts governments to not be petty assholes, so nobody is gonna play their games.
Hard to say - freelance truckers would drop off the grid basically immediately, but a lot of trucking is large firm with large contracts with large breach of contract fees if one side or another starts to reneg (The only good reason for the non-trucking party to reneg would be if they fucked up and agreed to a fuel costs provision where they pay more if fuel costs climb, a stupid thing to do on a long term contract).Here's a question, at what point do Diesel prices make a lot of things too unprofitable to continue? because we're starting down the barrel of $9 average in the next 100 days, so when can we expect truckers to stop operating?
The end of it is the losses would have to climb in excess of whatever contract breach terms exist before it becomes worthwhile to actually terminate services. So it wouldn't be a widespread immediate collapse, but reflective of contract terms, total value being moved, and the liquidity of the firms on both sides while lawyers rake in advisement fees.