Los Angeles hid power plant methane leak for a year(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Los Angeles hid power plant methane leak for a year
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-09-23/los-angeles-hid-a-methane-leak-for-a-year-activists-want-the-power-plant-shut-down
177 comments
My wife grew up near a naval base and I always thought it was funny how regularly you’d hear stories about people buying houses under the flight path and then complaining to the base.
It seems useful to me to allow people to build houses in less desirable locations, and it also seems... not wrong(?) to expect people to deal with a “nuisance” that they knew existed when they purchased their house (especially if they got their house for way cheaper than they would have otherwise!)
I understand the impulse of people wanting to make their nuisances disappear, but I’m not sure this particular problem (zoning where people choose to build near industry) is one that needs solving.
It seems useful to me to allow people to build houses in less desirable locations, and it also seems... not wrong(?) to expect people to deal with a “nuisance” that they knew existed when they purchased their house (especially if they got their house for way cheaper than they would have otherwise!)
I understand the impulse of people wanting to make their nuisances disappear, but I’m not sure this particular problem (zoning where people choose to build near industry) is one that needs solving.
How do you know that the people knew that the nuisance existed?
"Sometimes really loud jets take off really early" is not something that you would want to put into a realty listing, and is not necessarily something that would happen when you see the house. It might have been disclosed somewhere, but do you know how much paperwork there is with buying a house?
I can easily see someone not realizing that they would have this issue until after they move in. As much as they "should have known", they truly may not have.
Likewise with power plants, "You'll get a stench when the wind blows the wrong way" is again not something you advertise and not necessarily something you'd notice when you see the house.
(Of course, "You have to disclose all this crap" is part of why there is so much paperwork, which might or might not include some of it now...)
"Sometimes really loud jets take off really early" is not something that you would want to put into a realty listing, and is not necessarily something that would happen when you see the house. It might have been disclosed somewhere, but do you know how much paperwork there is with buying a house?
I can easily see someone not realizing that they would have this issue until after they move in. As much as they "should have known", they truly may not have.
Likewise with power plants, "You'll get a stench when the wind blows the wrong way" is again not something you advertise and not necessarily something you'd notice when you see the house.
(Of course, "You have to disclose all this crap" is part of why there is so much paperwork, which might or might not include some of it now...)
At some point, the buyer has to be responsible for their own due diligence. It's not like an airfield is small or hard to notice on a map.
I wouldn't buy a house without looking at the surrounding area in detail, just like I wouldn't buy a house without having an inspector check it out.
I wouldn't buy a house without looking at the surrounding area in detail, just like I wouldn't buy a house without having an inspector check it out.
I left an audio recorder over night at my place before a bought it.
But even that only goes so far-- e.g. it didn't capture that the local high school had suspended night games while lights were being replaced and after they restarted it produced a large amount of noise weekly. Fortunately we're far enough away and the buildings are well constructed enough that it's not an issue. ... but I would have missed it equally for a property closer to the school.
This is a place where I think cities should have wide-scale long-term noise studies and maps. It's an unreasonable cost to expect every buyer to conduct a local noise study, especially since you'd really need to run it for minimum of a week if not a month.
But even that only goes so far-- e.g. it didn't capture that the local high school had suspended night games while lights were being replaced and after they restarted it produced a large amount of noise weekly. Fortunately we're far enough away and the buildings are well constructed enough that it's not an issue. ... but I would have missed it equally for a property closer to the school.
This is a place where I think cities should have wide-scale long-term noise studies and maps. It's an unreasonable cost to expect every buyer to conduct a local noise study, especially since you'd really need to run it for minimum of a week if not a month.
It isn't the city's job to de-risk every private transaction. Why is it unreasonable for you to pay for your own study, but reasonable to expect me to pay for it. Numerous alternatives also exist, such as asking the neighbors, checking next-door, or moving out.
Lastly, many such maps already exist: https://maps.bts.dot.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html...
Lastly, many such maps already exist: https://maps.bts.dot.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html...
Sound pollution is a matter of public concern which is already regulated by the state.
An appropriate study takes weeks or months, since it would still be bad news to find out after the fact that one week out of the month or every other month has serious noise problems. -- which is an unreasonable amount of delay to stick on the private transaction (in particular, as a buyer you'll be sniped by someone less cautious).
Moreover, the data needed is essentially the same for all properties in an immediate area. This is a natural shared cost, and redoing it once off for each would be extraordinary wasteful.
Finally-- this entire thread sub-thread is about reducing state intervention by buyers being empowered to not purchase places where they're going to have problems with the noise. They can't do that without the information, they can't gather the information themselves on a reasonable time scale. The buyer can't demand the seller provide it (because by the time they meet the seller it's too late to start collecting it).
I don't see this as too much different from things like flood maps (which require rather expensive flyover lidar and historical watershed information, etc. to construct) that cities already provide.
> Lastly, many such maps already exist:
Yes, I'm aware. Which is also why I didn't think it was unreasonable to suggest. (though the DOT maps are understandably focused just on highway noise).
An appropriate study takes weeks or months, since it would still be bad news to find out after the fact that one week out of the month or every other month has serious noise problems. -- which is an unreasonable amount of delay to stick on the private transaction (in particular, as a buyer you'll be sniped by someone less cautious).
Moreover, the data needed is essentially the same for all properties in an immediate area. This is a natural shared cost, and redoing it once off for each would be extraordinary wasteful.
Finally-- this entire thread sub-thread is about reducing state intervention by buyers being empowered to not purchase places where they're going to have problems with the noise. They can't do that without the information, they can't gather the information themselves on a reasonable time scale. The buyer can't demand the seller provide it (because by the time they meet the seller it's too late to start collecting it).
I don't see this as too much different from things like flood maps (which require rather expensive flyover lidar and historical watershed information, etc. to construct) that cities already provide.
> Lastly, many such maps already exist:
Yes, I'm aware. Which is also why I didn't think it was unreasonable to suggest. (though the DOT maps are understandably focused just on highway noise).
Digging deeper, I think my reaction was to the idea that this is a real need and necessary civic expenditure.
While sound pollution is a concern to some, and regulated in some cases. IF this were on the ballot in my city, I would vote no, as I don't think it is a productive use of civic funds.
It seems that it is a zero sum initiative that would provide a marginal benefit to a very small minority of citizens.
In this case it would benefit people who are: sensitive to noise,have the luxury to choose between options, know and use the service, and afraid or disinclined to talk to locals.
It would also disadvantage people who are willing to put in more due diligence or have fewer options.
I see this a very different than flood maps, which ensure safety and help mitigate massive costs of rebuilding communities.
That said, perhaps there is a commercial market for such information. How much would you pay for such a map before buying a house?
While sound pollution is a concern to some, and regulated in some cases. IF this were on the ballot in my city, I would vote no, as I don't think it is a productive use of civic funds.
It seems that it is a zero sum initiative that would provide a marginal benefit to a very small minority of citizens.
In this case it would benefit people who are: sensitive to noise,have the luxury to choose between options, know and use the service, and afraid or disinclined to talk to locals.
It would also disadvantage people who are willing to put in more due diligence or have fewer options.
I see this a very different than flood maps, which ensure safety and help mitigate massive costs of rebuilding communities.
That said, perhaps there is a commercial market for such information. How much would you pay for such a map before buying a house?
I would have probably paid a considerable amount (and not just for buying but as part of my search).
Part of the problem though is with the exception of people who are weirdly sensitive[1] or keep unusual hours, most people just don't know that sound would be an issue for them until they're in a situation where sound is an issue for them.
The end result of this is a significant amount of cost on the public arising out of disputes, including distorting pressure on zoning.
Munis do astronomical amounts of data collection already, e.g. to maintain culverts, curbs, and storm drains they have street-view like data collection performed. They already do targeted sound studies (e.g. for roadways and public facilities). Some urban areas have gunshot detection and localization networks.
It might well be possible to make a case that a sound study could lower costs to the public by lowering code enforcement costs and reducing zoning conflicts (esp. if the marginal cost of adding it on top of other data collection programs was minimal).
[1] I wouldn't say that I am particularly sensitive, but being in a quiet location was part of my justification for the purchase that I was trading off against other considerations-- so I would have been unhappy if it didn't turn out to be what I expected. ... I'm happy with the result, and having lived here a few years I think I significantly underestimated how nice it would be.
Part of the problem though is with the exception of people who are weirdly sensitive[1] or keep unusual hours, most people just don't know that sound would be an issue for them until they're in a situation where sound is an issue for them.
The end result of this is a significant amount of cost on the public arising out of disputes, including distorting pressure on zoning.
Munis do astronomical amounts of data collection already, e.g. to maintain culverts, curbs, and storm drains they have street-view like data collection performed. They already do targeted sound studies (e.g. for roadways and public facilities). Some urban areas have gunshot detection and localization networks.
It might well be possible to make a case that a sound study could lower costs to the public by lowering code enforcement costs and reducing zoning conflicts (esp. if the marginal cost of adding it on top of other data collection programs was minimal).
[1] I wouldn't say that I am particularly sensitive, but being in a quiet location was part of my justification for the purchase that I was trading off against other considerations-- so I would have been unhappy if it didn't turn out to be what I expected. ... I'm happy with the result, and having lived here a few years I think I significantly underestimated how nice it would be.
IF most people don't know they are sensitive before they buy, how would the information help inform their decision? Also, im not sure how this information would help avoid any of the disputes you mention? If the noise is still there, and people are still unhappy about it, the dispute will exist.
The main purpose of collecting the data on noise is to find was to identify where and how to reduce it. For example aircraft operators who violate regulations get fined, and highways are targeted for specific modifications to make them more quiet.
This is not a zero sum initiative.
Given that the data is already being collected, making it available to the public requires relatively little additional effort. The primary value in doing so is to document what measures have been taken, how effective they are, and to motivate public policy decisions about what further measures to take.
The same information is useful for private transactions. This is how most people will use the data, but is not the main public policy reason for having collected it.
This is not a zero sum initiative.
Given that the data is already being collected, making it available to the public requires relatively little additional effort. The primary value in doing so is to document what measures have been taken, how effective they are, and to motivate public policy decisions about what further measures to take.
The same information is useful for private transactions. This is how most people will use the data, but is not the main public policy reason for having collected it.
FWIW, decibel meters with logging functionality are pretty cheap these days, if you want to reassure a prospective seller concerned about privacy. $60 on Amazon: https://www.amazon.ca/Backlight-Measuring-30dB-130dB-Instrum...
As I pointed out to another commentator, an airport 2 miles away might or might not produce noise for you. And whether it does depends on the flight path, which is not marked on your map.
For the airport issue, you can just look at satellite imagery and see the orientation of the runway(s). At two miles out the flight paths will be pretty well aligned with the runway, so it's not difficult to figure out if you'll have low-flying planes over your house or not.
Yes, if you know how flight paths work, then you'll realize that.
For most people it is another thing that they won't think about.
For most people it is another thing that they won't think about.
It's funny how everything is fairly obvious and easy to do once you think of it, but the hard part of any transaction, decision, or plan is actually having the thought about each of those things ahead of time.
Naval bases (and airfields) are pretty obvious on a map.
If you're on a flight path then you can be impacted by a base several miles away...when the wind is from a certain direction. Other houses at the same distance get no noise.
Flight paths do not tend to be marked on maps.
(Note, I used to contract for a small airline. Noise is more complicated than you'd think.)
Flight paths do not tend to be marked on maps.
(Note, I used to contract for a small airline. Noise is more complicated than you'd think.)
We have an issue in our house about one week a year they close the M25 overnight (the main ring road around London) and the diversion brings large trucks along the residential roads though our town.
It's not a problem as such but definitely something I wouldn't have possibly known about before moving in.
It's not a problem as such but definitely something I wouldn't have possibly known about before moving in.
I bought a house a few miles from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego and signed several pieces of paper relating to noise and the potential for unexploded ordinance. I think CA has pretty good laws on the books for disclosing stuff like that.
I could see people overlooking it, even if it was shoved in their faces. Buying a home is an overly emotional process where people are influenced by inconsequential factors("I love the color", etc) but overlook serious flaws.
I could see people overlooking it, even if it was shoved in their faces. Buying a home is an overly emotional process where people are influenced by inconsequential factors("I love the color", etc) but overlook serious flaws.
Well placed typo. California's laws are indeed unexploded ordinance.
The post makes sense to me with the supposed typo, are you sure it wasn't intended?
Homonyms are not typos though.
I'm familiar with both definitions of the word.
I'm familiar with both definitions of the word.
> Homonyms are not typos though.
Homonyms that are close in spelling can be typographical errors, and, because they aren't as visually-wrong as non-words, are particularly likely to escape notice when they are.
They can also be a different class of errors.
> I'm familiar with both definitions of the word.
You mean “the definitions of both words”, surely?
Homonyms that are close in spelling can be typographical errors, and, because they aren't as visually-wrong as non-words, are particularly likely to escape notice when they are.
They can also be a different class of errors.
> I'm familiar with both definitions of the word.
You mean “the definitions of both words”, surely?
I'm sorry, I do not post on Hacker News to have reddit arguments.
> You mean “the definitions of both words”, surely?
This is not how reasonable people act.
> You mean “the definitions of both words”, surely?
This is not how reasonable people act.
I don't find dragonwriter to be unreasonable. Instead, I find your expectations to be rather surprising. You expect to not be called out on misusing language? On a board with a large number of programmers, to whom the details of language use really matter?
You can think that this instance doesn't deserve the nitpicking. But getting all huffy and accusing the other side of being unreasonable seems to me to be rather over-sensitive.
You can think that this instance doesn't deserve the nitpicking. But getting all huffy and accusing the other side of being unreasonable seems to me to be rather over-sensitive.
> How do you know that the people knew that the nuisance existed?
Anecdotal, but the HOA I'm living in holds meetings about airport pollution. It's a major airport, that pre-dates these houses. It's almost directly in the flight path. They had to know that an airport... has planes landing and taking off?
It's not even that noisy as there are noise abatement procedures that are pretty effective. But as long as the noise level is above the birds they will complain.
Anecdotal, but the HOA I'm living in holds meetings about airport pollution. It's a major airport, that pre-dates these houses. It's almost directly in the flight path. They had to know that an airport... has planes landing and taking off?
It's not even that noisy as there are noise abatement procedures that are pretty effective. But as long as the noise level is above the birds they will complain.
In Poland it's common for people to build their houses near rivers in areas that are in a risk of flooding. When buying the land, they are warned of the consequences and advised to insure the house against flood. Of course, no one does it, because "what are the odds", and then they are the first ones to seek government aid because their livelihoods got destroyed.
why isn't there more research into active noise canceling (where the source noise can be known micro or milliseconds in advance) so airplanes can lift off more silently and similar inside the cabin?
alternatively use WHISPER technology helicopters to transport passengers to and from the plane at height
alternatively use WHISPER technology helicopters to transport passengers to and from the plane at height
There’s housing developments built on Rainier’s mudslide...
It's also worth mentioning that this can be a financially motivated move if the "nuisance" has an impact on the property's value.
In the UK there is a case[1] (based around cricket, of course) which set the precedent that even if you "come to the nuisance", you can still force people to stop.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
But actually that wiki page says the judgement regarding "coming to the nuisance" was based on precedent set by a different case almost 100 years earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman
But actually that wiki page says the judgement regarding "coming to the nuisance" was based on precedent set by a different case almost 100 years earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturges_v_Bridgman
A famous U.S. case often cited in the context of Law & Economics involves a residential development built near a pre-existing feedlot. Like in the UK case the court found an exception to the general rule that a court won't grant injunctive relief to those coming to the nuisance, and it ordered the feedlot to shutdown. However, the court made the developer pay damages to the feedlot to cover their losses--loss of business, relocation costs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E....
That's Coase's Theorem in action: any inconvenience can be compensated, so it's fine to mandate the globally economically optimal decision and use transfer payments to make them locally fair.
Sort of? AFAIU, according to the Coase theorem the courts should never have needed to be involved. Indeed, the rule prohibiting relief for those coming to the nuisance is designed to prevent people from using the courts as an end run around bargaining with the nuisance owner. The characterization of the judgment as achieving global optimality using transfer payments brings to mind Kaldor–Hicks.
Here's an interesting paper that discusses the case's relationship to the Coase theorem: Coming to the Nuisance: An Economic Analysis from an Incomplete Contracts Perspective, https://www.dartmouth.edu/~csnyder/491.pdf
Here's an interesting paper that discusses the case's relationship to the Coase theorem: Coming to the Nuisance: An Economic Analysis from an Incomplete Contracts Perspective, https://www.dartmouth.edu/~csnyder/491.pdf
I agree with some of the broad ideas here, but I also understand that doing this systematically pushes lower income people into higher "nusiance" areas which often end up being higher disease and lower lifespan areas from environmental pollution - which is inherently unfair as well as increasing the costs borne by lower income classes.
So we end up with a pretty ugly societal tradeoff if we only look at this as some sort of voluntary choice, when it is not really so.
So we end up with a pretty ugly societal tradeoff if we only look at this as some sort of voluntary choice, when it is not really so.
The thing is - money buys health. The poor are always going to have more limited resources, by definition.
The interesting question (to me at least) is how, and how much, do we optimize our redistribution to help less well-off folks?
I think you need to take a whole-system approach here. A dollar spent improving air quality next to this power plant might be a great investment, or it might be way down the list vs. say funding universal healthcare, which would help with other (potentially more serious) health issues too.
QUALYs are a good tool for assessing the impact of a dollar of spend as it pertains to heath outcomes, but they are not the only lens. But until you have unlimited dollars, you need some framework for allocating them (after first deciding how much redistribution should be done in the first place).
In general, I think more choices are better than fewer, so having the choice to in a cheaper but more noisy neighborhood is probably better than being priced out entirely and having to move to rural CA where you can afford rent. (At least, revealed preferences show that most residents think that it’s the preferable option).
The interesting question (to me at least) is how, and how much, do we optimize our redistribution to help less well-off folks?
I think you need to take a whole-system approach here. A dollar spent improving air quality next to this power plant might be a great investment, or it might be way down the list vs. say funding universal healthcare, which would help with other (potentially more serious) health issues too.
QUALYs are a good tool for assessing the impact of a dollar of spend as it pertains to heath outcomes, but they are not the only lens. But until you have unlimited dollars, you need some framework for allocating them (after first deciding how much redistribution should be done in the first place).
In general, I think more choices are better than fewer, so having the choice to in a cheaper but more noisy neighborhood is probably better than being priced out entirely and having to move to rural CA where you can afford rent. (At least, revealed preferences show that most residents think that it’s the preferable option).
Yeah, too often discussions go like this:
Problem: the only food poor people can afford is wonderbread. Solution: only accredited investors may now buy wonderbread.
Problem: the only food poor people can afford is wonderbread. Solution: only accredited investors may now buy wonderbread.
I agree with your assessment of unfairness. I personally see the solution as building way more housing.
If you only make it illegal to build housing near pre-existing industry, then what? That's basically a let them eat cake argument (not saying that that's what you're suggesting), because now there aren't cheap options near industry, and unless zoning changes allow for much more housing in the non-industrial areas, then the supply of housing goes down, the price goes up, and poor people just have to deal (all in the name of being saved from industry).
If you only make it illegal to build housing near pre-existing industry, then what? That's basically a let them eat cake argument (not saying that that's what you're suggesting), because now there aren't cheap options near industry, and unless zoning changes allow for much more housing in the non-industrial areas, then the supply of housing goes down, the price goes up, and poor people just have to deal (all in the name of being saved from industry).
For what it's worth, it's not just lower income people. The very wealthy people living by the Santa Monica airport also complain about the noise despite it having been there for the last ~100 years. (I don't say that to belittle your point which is definitely true - just to say that even people who can afford to live elsewhere still buy into these areas then complain about it.)
But doing that doesn't fix the problem for them, though. It just forces them to make a different trade-off with their limited resources than they naturally would have.
And since you've removed the option they preferred, they now have to go with something even worse.
Yeah we should basically mandate that the cost of housing within areas varies more than between....or just have far more public housing.
Yep I’ve learned that reduced rate public housing is super common in Europe but in the USA we don’t talk about it much.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl...
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl...
Because we tried it and it didn't go well, they were called the projects and it concentrated poverty and crime.
Well it’s worth reading the link to see how they avoided that problem in Austria... they had two strategies that seem to have succeeded there: the buildings are on a desirable area of town, and rent does not go up if your income goes up. The second point means that the area ends up being mixed income. You have to have low income to qualify for entry but then once you get on your feet and income rises you get to stay there. So they made affordable public housing that doesn’t become a slum.
If we evaluated software according to this policy, software would have been abandoned as unworkable and we would be using obviously more practical abacuses.
We should have tried the version without crack cocaine and general access handguns and systemic racism in education and employment.
The USA, among others, tried very hard to get rid of crack cocaine, arguably way too hard to the point of making things way worse in poor neighborhoods.
Back to my original point the problem with public housing was that is was concentrated.
Americans love their class symbols, and chief among them neighborhood. It's therefore absolutely necessarily that public housing be sprinkled around evenly.
Americans love their class symbols, and chief among them neighborhood. It's therefore absolutely necessarily that public housing be sprinkled around evenly.
It also doesn’t go so well in the Paris outer arrondissements or council estates in England-Scotland, etc.
Both of which share many crucial characteristics with American housing projects, particularly concentration of poverty.
Meanwhile, in the Austrian example given in the link above, Singaporean home subsidization, and other successful cases what you find are schemes that manage to create and maintain an admixture of incomes. There are different ways[1] to accomplish that and they're not all easy, but it does seem like a necessary requirement for success.
[1] As in the Austrian example, you can remove income requirements after move-in, so that people aren't forced out as they move up the income ladder. Or rather than subsidize rent you can subsidize ownership. By having an ownership stake people are incentivized to maintain the property, and even if they move they'll be replaced by someone with a similar income (or at least an income above the initial ceiling). Unfortunately, many liberals who promote subsidized housing scoff at permitting people to continue to benefit from that initial subsidization after their income has increased. But that resistance is precisely the kind of policy dynamic that concentrates poverty!
Meanwhile, in the Austrian example given in the link above, Singaporean home subsidization, and other successful cases what you find are schemes that manage to create and maintain an admixture of incomes. There are different ways[1] to accomplish that and they're not all easy, but it does seem like a necessary requirement for success.
[1] As in the Austrian example, you can remove income requirements after move-in, so that people aren't forced out as they move up the income ladder. Or rather than subsidize rent you can subsidize ownership. By having an ownership stake people are incentivized to maintain the property, and even if they move they'll be replaced by someone with a similar income (or at least an income above the initial ceiling). Unfortunately, many liberals who promote subsidized housing scoff at permitting people to continue to benefit from that initial subsidization after their income has increased. But that resistance is precisely the kind of policy dynamic that concentrates poverty!
dokem(1)
I think the issue is that people who move to these places are largely unaware of the specific issues when they make the decision to move.
I know it sounds ridiculous that someone wouldn't understand that moving next to a naval base would put you under a flight path, but I'm sure it happens.
(It would be kind of embarrassing to admit to that as well).
I know it sounds ridiculous that someone wouldn't understand that moving next to a naval base would put you under a flight path, but I'm sure it happens.
(It would be kind of embarrassing to admit to that as well).
Right, the first things I’d do would be look at google traffic historic patterns (morning, night), look at any big facilities around (large campuses, depots, stations, etc.) what do they produce?, superfund sites, topography (low lying, historical flood maps, etc) and drive around the neighborhood, check it out. What’s the vibe?
You don’t usually buy sight unseen.
You don’t usually buy sight unseen.
I would expect a mandatory one-page waiver, literally printed on paper of a unique color (not white), that people are forced to sign before buying the house.
Too often things like this get buried in a mountain of paperwork, and while they SHOULD read through it all, the average buyer won't take the time. Americans (maybe people in general) are lazy.
Too often things like this get buried in a mountain of paperwork, and while they SHOULD read through it all, the average buyer won't take the time. Americans (maybe people in general) are lazy.
rather than mishmash of obscure legal paperwork, every home should be accompanied by a standardized booklet with a report card on the front (with various important metrics, like heating/cooling efficiency, electrical reliability/safety, structural integrity, environmental risks, pollution measurements, water tightness, etc.). the innards would have the gory details, architectural drawings, schematics, repair history, modifications/additions, and such.
this booklet could then be provided to interested buyers for review, with the stipulation that any serious distortions/omissions could be subject to sanctions and legal recourse. this isn't far off from what we do now, but the standardization away from overly wordy legalese would be a material advance. we're collectively under the false impression that legalese protects us from risk, but it's more a form of regulatory capture for the legal industry.
this booklet could then be provided to interested buyers for review, with the stipulation that any serious distortions/omissions could be subject to sanctions and legal recourse. this isn't far off from what we do now, but the standardization away from overly wordy legalese would be a material advance. we're collectively under the false impression that legalese protects us from risk, but it's more a form of regulatory capture for the legal industry.
The required disclosures for buying houses vary _widely_ between different US states.
In California, it is not unusual to receive a packet six inches thick.
In "other" states, a couple dozen pages will suffice.
I think your standardization idea is an excellent one.
In California, it is not unusual to receive a packet six inches thick.
In "other" states, a couple dozen pages will suffice.
I think your standardization idea is an excellent one.
Housing under a noisy flight path is an interesting example.
In an ideal world, I think that would be an excellent place for deaf people to live. They're not disturbed by the noise, it would be cheaper than other areas, and living in a community of other deaf people seems like something many would really enjoy.
The typical regulation approach has no room for adjustments like these, and I think it's bad for everyone.
In an ideal world, I think that would be an excellent place for deaf people to live. They're not disturbed by the noise, it would be cheaper than other areas, and living in a community of other deaf people seems like something many would really enjoy.
The typical regulation approach has no room for adjustments like these, and I think it's bad for everyone.
Deaf people have kids and partners who won’t like the noise. You could make an apartment for single deaf people. But that’s like... a very specific group of people.
It would of course be voluntary to move there...
My impression is that the deaf mostly date other deaf people.
My impression is that the deaf mostly date other deaf people.
Right but is it only for deaf people? If it is, it’s a small effect. If it isn’t, then actually it will just be housing for poor people and “deaf people” becomes a political Trojan horse. Seems like a weird or non solution when perhaps the land should just be zoned for industrial use. Unless I’m not getting something...
If Emperor Regulator, I would maybe make the area a "Designated Noise Zone", which means you have no right to complain about noise there.
Then whoever want to live there under those conditions can do so.
To me, this is better than letting the area go to waste.
I imagine it would be a good deal for deaf people, but if it's the best deal for for some poor people, that's also good in my book.
I don't fully understand your "political Trojan horse" phrase, but we probably have different underlying philosophies.
Then whoever want to live there under those conditions can do so.
To me, this is better than letting the area go to waste.
I imagine it would be a good deal for deaf people, but if it's the best deal for for some poor people, that's also good in my book.
I don't fully understand your "political Trojan horse" phrase, but we probably have different underlying philosophies.
If you allow people to build on a floodplain they will. Now they are a humanitarian risk.
See: Houston. Homes were built in areas that would be intentionally flooded in an extreme weather event like Harvey.
Some American industries have the foresight to gobble up all the land around them and become landlords. Every few years they get the option to decline renewing a lease and expanding their facilities.
But since they control the construction around them, they can do their own zoning after a fashion to avoid worst case scenarios like condo balconies downwind from their exhaust.
I’m gonna fault Sriracha here a bit for cheaping out not preventing a problem. Land speculators can’t buy land that isn’t for sale. And they can’t use dirty tricks against another corporation to force a sale, like they might against private land owners.
But since they control the construction around them, they can do their own zoning after a fashion to avoid worst case scenarios like condo balconies downwind from their exhaust.
I’m gonna fault Sriracha here a bit for cheaping out not preventing a problem. Land speculators can’t buy land that isn’t for sale. And they can’t use dirty tricks against another corporation to force a sale, like they might against private land owners.
> And they can’t use dirty tricks against another corporation to force a sale, like they might against private land owners.
so in theory the airports could modify their schedules and air paths so as to game the private housing market? buy affected houses while under your paths, then sell after changing your paths, repeat?
so in theory the airports could modify their schedules and air paths so as to game the private housing market? buy affected houses while under your paths, then sell after changing your paths, repeat?
Same problem everywhere...
Not just huge industries.... literally people buying land next to a farm (which has been there for 100+ years), then compain due to animal noises and smell.
Not just huge industries.... literally people buying land next to a farm (which has been there for 100+ years), then compain due to animal noises and smell.
25 years ago, Denver opened a new airport; way outside the city. Guess where the first houses sprung up? You guessed it, right under the takeoff and landing flight paths.
> To avoid this you’ll need better more stringent zoning laws with bigger buffer zones.
Zone the whole world as industrial zone, climate crisis solved.
Zone the whole world as industrial zone, climate crisis solved.
Then you will have people complaining about restrictive zoning laws.
You can’t win.
You can’t win.
The issue isn't just isolated to those living around it. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-gree...), letting it leak out like that for a year has likely caused significant environmental harm.
Methane is removed from the atmosphere due to chemical reaction within about 12 years, so good news: with the leak stopped, the effects of the leak will taper off relatively quickly.
Not entierly correct:
methane "tails off to about GWP of 28 for a 100-year time frame"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Methane_as...
Just because you built something in the "middle of nowhere" doesn't necessarily mean you should get to impose externalities that devalue the properties around you. It depends on what the externality is but zoning may not be enough, you may need to actually own the land you're creating restrictions over for it to be fair. Otherwise there's a first mover advantage in starting a negative spiral. If you don't do it on your land before your neighbor you get all the disadvantages without making money from the use.
The argument operates on a spectrum of specifics, and line drawing is always going to look absurd to someone.
A similar things happens when small communities are encroached by commuters - newcomers get upset about things the locals have "always done", and it almost invariably ends up becoming a class thing.
I have a relative who has lived in the same home for almost 50 years. She basically owns a hill with her house on top - it is about 2 acres. Until a few years ago, she'd been routinely burning leaves and lawn debris (or, later had the kid who did her lawn work do it).
It didn't matter until some neighbors sold to a developer who put up commuter-McMansions across from her. It threatened to become a huge issue with the new people making bullshit claims about fire risk and whatnot. She stopped, I helped put up a tall privacy fence at a strategic point (that they also hate, but can't do anything about) and she'll be fine.
Who was right? Well... I don't think there is a right answer, only a negotiated one.
A similar things happens when small communities are encroached by commuters - newcomers get upset about things the locals have "always done", and it almost invariably ends up becoming a class thing.
I have a relative who has lived in the same home for almost 50 years. She basically owns a hill with her house on top - it is about 2 acres. Until a few years ago, she'd been routinely burning leaves and lawn debris (or, later had the kid who did her lawn work do it).
It didn't matter until some neighbors sold to a developer who put up commuter-McMansions across from her. It threatened to become a huge issue with the new people making bullshit claims about fire risk and whatnot. She stopped, I helped put up a tall privacy fence at a strategic point (that they also hate, but can't do anything about) and she'll be fine.
Who was right? Well... I don't think there is a right answer, only a negotiated one.
> The argument operates on a spectrum of specifics, and line drawing is always going to look absurd to someone.
No doubt. My point is exactly that you have to find a balance somewhere, and it can't just be first come first serve. Because of fire risk we have a law that there can't be trees less than X meters from a house. That means someone can take a lot, build a house on the border and then force the neighbor to remove some trees. For the laws to work well together it should be required that someone building a house outright owns or at least buys the rights to the area that now needs to be cleared of trees. The Sriracha example is another tricky one. Just because when you started there was no one around you doesn't mean you get to pollute the air around you at will, but maybe industrial zoning of the area would have made that use ok. It's all a balancing act. Since local zoning tends to be both short-sighted and corrupt these issues crop up a lot.
No doubt. My point is exactly that you have to find a balance somewhere, and it can't just be first come first serve. Because of fire risk we have a law that there can't be trees less than X meters from a house. That means someone can take a lot, build a house on the border and then force the neighbor to remove some trees. For the laws to work well together it should be required that someone building a house outright owns or at least buys the rights to the area that now needs to be cleared of trees. The Sriracha example is another tricky one. Just because when you started there was no one around you doesn't mean you get to pollute the air around you at will, but maybe industrial zoning of the area would have made that use ok. It's all a balancing act. Since local zoning tends to be both short-sighted and corrupt these issues crop up a lot.
Feels like the ideal solution would be coupled with lowering prices in other areas through upzoning or decreased regulatory costs in order to not negatively impact those currently making use of the sub-standard housing available.
The best way to avoid this is no zoning at all, and restrictions on what you can emit.
The DWP is a very corrupt agency, I believe mostly due to it's union. They are currently under investigation by the FBI for corruption. I remember reading that there is some sort of large fund paid from the budget that goes to the union without any sort of oversight on how it's spent.
DWP is awful. They only send you a bill every 2 months. So by the time you get the bill and see that it's high, it's almost too late to do anything about it before the season is over and the weather has changed. They also combine water, electric, solid waste removal, and sewer onto one bill. So the first time you get a bill from them after having come from somewhere else, you're like, "Why is my electric bill for my 800 square foot house with no air conditioning $800???" Oh, it's 2 months, and for 4 different things. Quite irritating all around. There was a ballot initiative to get them to send a monthly bill, but of course it had a bunch of other stuff that made no sense in it so it got shot down.
>The DWP is a very corrupt agency, I believe mostly due to it's union.
You are partially correct. It is corrupt at all levels, union and management. Laziness and incompetence all around.
You are partially correct. It is corrupt at all levels, union and management. Laziness and incompetence all around.
In an area producing oil, if you don't use the methane for something like this power plant, then it will be burned off as waste at the well. I'm not advocating for the power plant but rather pointing out that methane itself is a byproduct you've got to deal with. And clearly the plant should be burning the methane instead of leaking it. As green energy becomes more and more feasible, I think the answer to a problem like this will be to lower the quantity of oil being produced so there's less waste methane to deal with.
I have seen it happen several times where it was considered illegal to use waste methane (for example, to run a generator) because the operator was unable to get a permit to do so.
The reasoning is that small scale power generation produces other pollutants (NOx, etc) that are even more tightly regulated than the methane.
This plant still should have been able to secure a permit to flare the methane (thus converting it to CO2 + soot) which would at least be better for global warming than releasing the methane directly
The reasoning is that small scale power generation produces other pollutants (NOx, etc) that are even more tightly regulated than the methane.
This plant still should have been able to secure a permit to flare the methane (thus converting it to CO2 + soot) which would at least be better for global warming than releasing the methane directly
I have friends who live in a complex that was built for athlete housing during the 2010 Winter Olympics. The sewage treatment plant is 1 away on one side and an asphalt plant is 1km away on the other side and have been there before anybody ever considered building anything else near there.
There are never ending complaints from the residents about the asphalt plant.
The town council soliciting bids to have paving done got only one quote - from the company that operate the asphalt plant. They offered to truck the asphalt in from their other plant in the next town 45 minutes away, with all the trucking costs at the town’s expense.
Nimbyism is out of control.
There are never ending complaints from the residents about the asphalt plant.
The town council soliciting bids to have paving done got only one quote - from the company that operate the asphalt plant. They offered to truck the asphalt in from their other plant in the next town 45 minutes away, with all the trucking costs at the town’s expense.
Nimbyism is out of control.
bgorman(5)
landemva(1)
Activists trying to shut down power plants in the middle of a series of blackouts as a result of the lack of capacity kind of summarises California to me.
It seems like the implication is that this is toxic pollution, but methane is safe to breathe even in large quantities. It's biologically inert, and not thought to be a carcinogen.
I'm not sure I understand the outrage. Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas, but it's not dangerous to residents in the area, unless the leak was so extremely large as to pose a fire hazard, or displace oxygen.
I'm not sure I understand the outrage. Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas, but it's not dangerous to residents in the area, unless the leak was so extremely large as to pose a fire hazard, or displace oxygen.
> I'm not sure I understand the outrage. Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas
You answered your own question.
You answered your own question.
If they covered up this, what else would they cover up? The coverup itself is cause for concern because it proves they're dishonest.
Honestly I'd be worried if a power plant was leaking gas and they didn't talk about it. Having good maintenance is a good thing, if you don't do this maintenance and cover up problems instead of fixing them you end more likely to get situations like the Longford Gas Explosion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esso_Longford_gas_explosion. The other thing is that continuity of energy supplies are important, I remember clearly the 3 weeks where there was no hot water or heating after that explosion due to the interruptions to supply.
There was a massive gas leak, of something that's very, very bad for the environment, and the government hid it from the people. Why shouldn't we be outraged?
The entire article is about residents in the area breathing in the methane. There is no danger to them breathing in the methane, even in very large amounts. It does nothing to you.
It's a potent greenhouse gas, and of course we should try to eliminate leaks. But that is a global effect, and on a global scale, this was not a massive leak at all, it was infinitesimal.
It's a potent greenhouse gas, and of course we should try to eliminate leaks. But that is a global effect, and on a global scale, this was not a massive leak at all, it was infinitesimal.
Since when is industrial methane 100% pure as if this is some kind of hospital gas supply. No doubt that methane leak was putting a whole lot of undesirable things into the air people shouldn't be breathing.
Sure, and I'm not saying they shouldn't fix it. But in terms of what we should be outraged about, this is pretty far down the list.
Each and every well-maintained, perfectly-functioning coal-fired power plant in this country is worse. The million of cars in the LA-area are worse.
I just think the article is giving an improper impression of the dangers of methane (or even benzene, or whatever else is leaking).
Each and every well-maintained, perfectly-functioning coal-fired power plant in this country is worse. The million of cars in the LA-area are worse.
I just think the article is giving an improper impression of the dangers of methane (or even benzene, or whatever else is leaking).
>There is no danger to them breathing in the methane, even in very large amounts. It does nothing to you.
Some info about methane for you:
>Methane is nontoxic, yet it is extremely flammable and may form explosive mixtures with air. Methane is also an asphyxiant if the oxygen concentration is reduced to below about 16% by displacement, as most people can tolerate a reduction from 21% to 16% without ill effects.
So not totally harmless.
Some info about methane for you:
>Methane is nontoxic, yet it is extremely flammable and may form explosive mixtures with air. Methane is also an asphyxiant if the oxygen concentration is reduced to below about 16% by displacement, as most people can tolerate a reduction from 21% to 16% without ill effects.
So not totally harmless.
NASA post about CA Methane:
> A Third of California Methane Traced to a Few Super-Emitters
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7535
> A Third of California Methane Traced to a Few Super-Emitters
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7535
It's interesting that there is capability to locate methane leaks that doesn't seem to be directly tied to regulatory monitoring?
Between remote sensing and more localized lower cost handheld and IOT sensors, this seems like an area which could be strongly improved for fighting climate change.
https://hackaday.io/project/12568-portable-ecological-labora...
Between remote sensing and more localized lower cost handheld and IOT sensors, this seems like an area which could be strongly improved for fighting climate change.
https://hackaday.io/project/12568-portable-ecological-labora...
It is tied to regulatory monitoring, in CA:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/greenhouse-gas-inve...
The ability to check the self-reported emissions with remote sensing is new, and has led to a recalibration (ahem) of self-reported emissions.
The technology for remote sensing of CH4 is very exciting and it's being pushed forward in a lot of different ways. As you pointed out, you need sensors at various scales (in situ, airborne, space), calibration of retrieved concentrations (it's not a direct measurement), and inversions to find out what the sources are, given that you observe a certain set of concentrations. It's a complex problem!
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/greenhouse-gas-inve...
The ability to check the self-reported emissions with remote sensing is new, and has led to a recalibration (ahem) of self-reported emissions.
The technology for remote sensing of CH4 is very exciting and it's being pushed forward in a lot of different ways. As you pointed out, you need sensors at various scales (in situ, airborne, space), calibration of retrieved concentrations (it's not a direct measurement), and inversions to find out what the sources are, given that you observe a certain set of concentrations. It's a complex problem!
So now we know that in at least two places in California, power companies didn't report leaks. This most recent one is much smaller, but as you joke about, having independent studies is the only thing we have. There should be a criminal policy with levels that require reporting. There should be financial and criminal penalties for not reporting.
The viewpoint I have heard is that most enterprises want to fix the leaks if they are informed about where they are to a high degree of specificity (e.g., ~20 meters). Then they can send a crew with detection equipment. They're trying the carrot rather than the stick for now. Anecdotally, this has worked.
It's not clear, to me at least, that there should be criminal penalties for medium sized leaks like in TFA. I don't know at all what the regulations are.
It's not clear, to me at least, that there should be criminal penalties for medium sized leaks like in TFA. I don't know at all what the regulations are.
I did a really quick skim of the program and didn't really see remote sensing. It looks like the program does collect data reports and map them - which is always nice.
I did pick up this "For reporters subject to the California Cap-and-Trade Program, submitted data are verified by a CARB-accredited independent third-party verifier." Is it the remote sensing satellite that is a third-party verifier?
I did pick up this "For reporters subject to the California Cap-and-Trade Program, submitted data are verified by a CARB-accredited independent third-party verifier." Is it the remote sensing satellite that is a third-party verifier?
I'm not sure what's done for Cap-and-Trade, when actual money might be at stake.
Here's a link, which you may have seen, about how individual facility monitoring can work, when you need quantitative flux estimates:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/methane/ab1496-rese...
See at the bottom -- a third-party will fly a plane in circles around the site to measure all concentrations in a surface enclosing the site. The concentrations, plus wind speed, give the site emissions. (I think that's intuitive, but it's also the divergence theorem from vector calculus.)
That's a lot of work to get just one day's emissions. And there are technical issues already because you want to get the whole surface concentrations+windspeed at the same time, but you can't, because the plane has to circle the site over many hours.
Despite those cautionary footnotes, this approach is used in calibration/validation of the concentration/emission relationship. Getting it all quantitatively right, as opposed to just seeing a plume, is a complex problem. People are still exploring how it can all work together (space, airborne, in situ, plus modeling).
Here's a link, which you may have seen, about how individual facility monitoring can work, when you need quantitative flux estimates:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/methane/ab1496-rese...
See at the bottom -- a third-party will fly a plane in circles around the site to measure all concentrations in a surface enclosing the site. The concentrations, plus wind speed, give the site emissions. (I think that's intuitive, but it's also the divergence theorem from vector calculus.)
That's a lot of work to get just one day's emissions. And there are technical issues already because you want to get the whole surface concentrations+windspeed at the same time, but you can't, because the plane has to circle the site over many hours.
Despite those cautionary footnotes, this approach is used in calibration/validation of the concentration/emission relationship. Getting it all quantitatively right, as opposed to just seeing a plume, is a complex problem. People are still exploring how it can all work together (space, airborne, in situ, plus modeling).
That's very interesting, thanks!
The capability is still developing. Europe has satellites capable of detecting methane sending back new data every day now. Processing that data to identify leaks is still a challenge, not something we have been able to batch in a nightly computer job. We can get there, but the very first satellite methane dataset is still only a few years old.
we've come to expect so little from media outlets like the latimes, but it's frustrating that even an article from jpl would not provide basic order of magnitude to ground the risks, not just an attention grabbing headline.
methane is estimated to cause about 25% of pollution effects, so 1/3 of that is on the order of 8% of california's pollution effects, which means addressing these super-emitters could be impactful, though not game changing.
methane is estimated to cause about 25% of pollution effects, so 1/3 of that is on the order of 8% of california's pollution effects, which means addressing these super-emitters could be impactful, though not game changing.
The headline was not intended to be merely attention-grabbing.
It was trying to illustrate that although leaks are a fractal phenomenon, you can make significant progress by starting at the top few. For more on this, see the abstract of the Nature paper at:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3
You'll notice the abstract focuses on what we'd call the "80/20" nature of the problem.
Going all the way to risk (of warming?) would enlarge the scope of the investigation a lot. I think I've seen talks by Riley Duren, the PI, where he gives some percentage breakdowns of the form: "CH4 is x% of GHG potential over the next Y years and in our study region, z% of CH4 came from these sources."
It was trying to illustrate that although leaks are a fractal phenomenon, you can make significant progress by starting at the top few. For more on this, see the abstract of the Nature paper at:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3
You'll notice the abstract focuses on what we'd call the "80/20" nature of the problem.
Going all the way to risk (of warming?) would enlarge the scope of the investigation a lot. I think I've seen talks by Riley Duren, the PI, where he gives some percentage breakdowns of the form: "CH4 is x% of GHG potential over the next Y years and in our study region, z% of CH4 came from these sources."
we're agreeing on a lot of the substance (it's a problem that should be addressed right away, along with other super-emitters), but the title is absolutely clickbait. i did skim the latimes article (and as an LA resident, it's of particular interest)--not even one attempt at grounding the actual risks, but absolutely filled with emotional language. without a sense of the collective risk involved, it's certainly meant to automatically push the alarm buttons of the less well-informed. methane, oh my god, what's next, cancer?!
it's the same tried-and-true sensationalist tactic of making the issue de jure outsized relative to the danger. it's worked with aids, 9/11, covid, etc. fear sells.
again, 8% reduction at the limit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not by itself going to change our lives materially (except for those nearby, reason enough to adjure action). that's why the sensationalism was added, to make the story seem more relevant than it is. but we as citizens should not, and do not, need that kind of manipulation to do the right thing. it's cynical and infantalizing.
it's the same tried-and-true sensationalist tactic of making the issue de jure outsized relative to the danger. it's worked with aids, 9/11, covid, etc. fear sells.
again, 8% reduction at the limit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not by itself going to change our lives materially (except for those nearby, reason enough to adjure action). that's why the sensationalism was added, to make the story seem more relevant than it is. but we as citizens should not, and do not, need that kind of manipulation to do the right thing. it's cynical and infantalizing.
Oh, I didn't like the LAT formulation either. I thought you were referring mostly to the JPL press release. (The JPL work was really about CH4's contribution to greenhouse warming, not at all to personal health -- I'm very familiar with that work.)
The LAT didn't say anything about whether the emission levels they suggest (~100 kg/hour = ~200 m^3/hour) are large from a health perspective, and they didn't say anything about the actual risk from CH4.
A BOE calculation shows that if the wind is 5km/hour, and the CH4 disperses over a cross-section 100m x 20m (very tight), then the steady-state concentration in the plume would be about 20ppm, which is a bit over the overall atmosphere (~2ppm). The NIOSH maximum safe concentration, however, is 1000ppm.
This makes me guess that the leak isn't very consequential from a health POV. It would be nice to have the LAT ask someone who knows more!
The LAT didn't say anything about whether the emission levels they suggest (~100 kg/hour = ~200 m^3/hour) are large from a health perspective, and they didn't say anything about the actual risk from CH4.
A BOE calculation shows that if the wind is 5km/hour, and the CH4 disperses over a cross-section 100m x 20m (very tight), then the steady-state concentration in the plume would be about 20ppm, which is a bit over the overall atmosphere (~2ppm). The NIOSH maximum safe concentration, however, is 1000ppm.
This makes me guess that the leak isn't very consequential from a health POV. It would be nice to have the LAT ask someone who knows more!
yes, sorry, i jumped back and forth in my responses, but that's exactly the kind of grounding every article needs.
DWP staff say the methane plume didn’t leave the power plant site.
Seems unlikely...
Seems unlikely...
Why can't we have a government-funded system that pays out to any whistle-blower some proportional amount of money (proportional to the damages they prevent)?
This would align the incentive system very quickly!
This would align the incentive system very quickly!
For good actors. Brings to mind the Cobra Effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
How could the cobra effect get into play though?
some CEO arranges for some extremely damaging behavior, then tells on himself?
some CEO arranges for some extremely damaging behavior, then tells on himself?
Wait the headline says they hid it for a year, but readin it it says > couple of years <? What kind of journalism is it?
I think you're mixing up stuff. Here is what what said:
- Headline: "Los Angeles hid a methane leak for a year"
- "Power revealed last month that its power plant had been leaking methane gas for at least three years"
- "The plant’s compressor units had been leaking gas “for the last couple years,” one staffer said. The utility had a plan in place to fix the compressors later in the year but"
- "especially because utility staff said they discovered the leak in August 2019, a full year earlier. Staffers said they didn’t notify the public because they didn’t believe anyone was at risk"
So, it has been leaking for years. But they only discovered it a year ago. They cannot hide what they do not know, hence the headline.
Although if I was the editor, I'd have chosen "Power plant leaked methane for years" rather than "Someone hid it for a year", but I guess that's the angle they've chosen (or the former was already known, so not "news").
- Headline: "Los Angeles hid a methane leak for a year"
- "Power revealed last month that its power plant had been leaking methane gas for at least three years"
- "The plant’s compressor units had been leaking gas “for the last couple years,” one staffer said. The utility had a plan in place to fix the compressors later in the year but"
- "especially because utility staff said they discovered the leak in August 2019, a full year earlier. Staffers said they didn’t notify the public because they didn’t believe anyone was at risk"
So, it has been leaking for years. But they only discovered it a year ago. They cannot hide what they do not know, hence the headline.
Although if I was the editor, I'd have chosen "Power plant leaked methane for years" rather than "Someone hid it for a year", but I guess that's the angle they've chosen (or the former was already known, so not "news").
“Jet Propulsion Laboratory researchers first detected a methane plume at the power plant in 2017 but didn’t alert DWP until more recent drone surveys showed the leak had worsened.”
Ohh yeah, you're right, I mixed up things. Thanks.
I think headlines and articles are often written by different people.
It's true, editors generally write headlines, often without the input or approval of whomever writes the article.
For example the Sriracha company settled in the middle of nowhere, the north San Jose water treatment facility was in the middle of nowhere but now you have housing next to them and people complaining about smells or pollution.
To avoid this you’ll need better more stringent zoning laws with bigger buffer zones.