ESGHound

25 ms·

1.
by ESGHound 3y ago
Glad to see YC living up to its reputation. keep grinding, brother.
2.
by ESGHound 5y ago
No, you tell me that everything I point out that is blatantly a violation must be a Typo. You don't understand emissions calculations and confidently claim expertise in something you just pulled up on Wikipedia. I am well aware that th
3.
by ESGHound 5y ago
Heres a tl;dr from Reddit. I'm very tired as this is a big deal and no, I don't have a cohesive narrative throughout the series. I was trying to get as much information out there during the very short 30-day window for public co
4.
by ESGHound 5y ago
I've cited every single claim I've made. And no, I'm not a fan of Musk. From a legal and technical standpoint, My work has been run through legal, environmental, and oil and gas engineers I've worked with over the years.
5.
by ESGHound 5y ago
This is not true at all. Doubly not true when your program is subsidized by Federal dollars and takes place adjacent to protected federal lands. The FAA is subject to NEPA review, and hence any SpaceX activity in this area must go through t
6.
by ESGHound 5y ago
It's not true at all. Federal regulations dictate most environmental standards and in top of that TCEQ is a very competent and at times tough regulator. EPA definitely has a dog in the fight, especially considering that a 250 megawatt
7.
by ESGHound 5y ago
Hi, Author here. FAA's document is subject to NEPA and table 2.1 in the PEA considers the gas plant and power plant to be in scope. FAA is the overseeing agency for this action so it doesn't matter that it's not in "FAA&