Supreme Court Will Hear Biggest Climate Change Case in a Decade (nytimes.com) 200
In the most important environmental case in more than a decade, the Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a dispute that could restrict or even eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to control the pollution that is heating the planet. From a report: A decision by the high court, with its conservative supermajority, could shred President Biden's plans to halve the nation's greenhouse emissions by the end of the decade, which scientists have said is necessary to avert the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. "They could handcuff the federal government's ability to affordably reduce greenhouse gases from power plants," said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. But the outcome could also have repercussions that stretch well beyond air pollution, restricting the ability of federal agencies to regulate health care, workplace safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.
[...] At issue is a federal regulation that broadly governs emissions from power plants. But in a curious twist, the regulation actually never took effect and does not currently exist. The legal wrangling began in 2015 when President Barack Obama announced the Clean Power Plan, his chief strategy to fight climate change. Citing its authority under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration planned to require each state to lower carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector -- primarily by replacing coal-fired power plants with wind, solar and other clean sources. Electricity generation is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, behind transportation.
[...] At issue is a federal regulation that broadly governs emissions from power plants. But in a curious twist, the regulation actually never took effect and does not currently exist. The legal wrangling began in 2015 when President Barack Obama announced the Clean Power Plan, his chief strategy to fight climate change. Citing its authority under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration planned to require each state to lower carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector -- primarily by replacing coal-fired power plants with wind, solar and other clean sources. Electricity generation is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, behind transportation.
Headline missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Decisions (Score:5, Informative)
This is what most people don't get about the Supreme Court. Most of the time they aren't actually ruling on if the government can or can't regulate something. Usually they are holding the government to it's own rules. Congress never gave the power to the executive branch to unilaterally change immigration rules, thus Trump's immigration changes were overturned. The court didn't say the government *couldn't* change the rules, they said the government did so improperly.
That's what is going on here. Congress never gave the EPA the power to regulate CO2. They could, but they didn't. So the EPA doesn't get to regulate CO2, until congress lets them.
Same thing with the vaccine mandate. OSHA tried to argue that a line in their charter that allows them to regulate workplace related hazards allowed them to mandate that *everybody* that works for a company must get a vaccine. Of course, not all workers have the same risk of exposure, and the point was made that many workers are working from home, which cannot be regulated by OSHA. Therefore the mandate was too wide, and congress did not give them the authority to make such a wide-ranging mandate. Tellingly, they allowed the sperate mandate for health care workers to stand, as it is directly related to their ability to perform their job, as laid out by congress.
Re: (Score:2)
But the Supreme Court can easily find the way to both sides when it does so. Take the recent decision ruling that the federal law barring discrimination based on sex barred discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender presentation; it was a perfectly reasonable conservative textualist interpretation by Gorsuch. And the dissents that found the opposite were also perfectly reasonable textual or originalist interpretations by other justices.
O
Re: (Score:2)
Or the vaccine mandate. CoVID being present elsewhere does not make it not a workplace hazard, and not all workers ever have the same risk of exposure to any hazard; the mandate could have been upheld perfectly fine.
The problem is that OSHA is limited to regulating workplace specific hazards, not general hazards. They can't mandate how buildings are built in earthquake zones, for example. Or mandate security measures for a workplace that is in a high crime zone. Local ordinances can take care of those regulations, but OSHA was never given that power.
The fix is easy. The supreme court decision even spelled it out. Tailor the mandate to jobs requiring in-person contact with other people or the public. That's the main rea
Re: (Score:2)
Covid is a hazard everywhere, but ...
but, they tried to mandate the vaccine everywhere, as said above, not just at the workplace where they have authority.
Re: (Score:3)
It applied no matter where those employees worked though, which means that it applied in people's homes, which is outside the authority of OSHA. OSHA only has authority to make regulations that affect what happens in workplaces, but with many working from home, they regulated those working from home too.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, scotus has previously decided that CO_2 is a "pollutant" (clearly a wrong decision), and as such it is under the purview of the EPA.
I believe what is at issue in this lawsuit is Obama's way to calculate the cost of CO_2 "pollution," by including costs allegedly incurred by OTHER smokestack emissions which are NOT accused of exacerbating global warming. In other words, it's an attempt to use a "climate change" rule to regulate something that has nothing to do with alleged "climate change." A
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, scotus has previously decided that CO_2 is a "pollutant" (clearly a wrong decision), and as such it is under the purview of the EPA.
Our atmosphere is currently suffering from an over abundance of Co2 relative to ideal amounts for human life on earth. It is a pollutant.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets debate that...
Humans could survive just fine at 5C higher, the costal rich becoming the mountain rich would be a spur to economic productivity and velocity of money across all classes.
All low lying areas would provide great habitat for the fixing of carbon into the bottom of the worlds oceans bringing the CO2 trend line down. The sea walls avoid such inrush do nothing but delay the shallow creatures doing their work on atompheric CO2.
Think the atmosphere CO2 coul
Re: (Score:2)
Ideal amount compared to what?
Lets debate that...
Sigh... You quote my use of the word "ideal" and then you pretend that's not what I said with the rest of your statements. Sure, humanity won't go extinct at 5C higher but that's not what I was ever suggesting. The amount of disruptions caused by a 5C increase are far from ideal for humanity. From regions around the equator becoming close to uninhabitable to massive changes in weather that would have drastic impacts on what can be grown where. A 5C increase would change a lot for humanity for the worse.
All low lying areas would provide great habitat for the fixing of carbon into the bottom of the worlds oceans bringing the CO2 trend line down. The sea walls avoid such inrush do nothing but delay the shallow creatures doing their work on atompheric CO2.
Are
nonsense (Score:2)
Congress created the coast guard to collect revenue. But they didn't specify how it would interdict ships or regulate the sea ways. And this isn't just because they were lazy it was to give some latitude to the executive on how to execute.
if congress doesn't like how the executive is doing something they can make laws to limit that activity.
Completely false (Score:3)
Boy have you been spoon fed a bunch of bogus talking points.
here's why OSHA can s impose mandates. THe overarching reason is the Chevron doctrine (look it up). But here's the enabling court descisions OSHA itself cites:
The power to regulate employment conditions under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, is derived mainly from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. (Sec. 2(b), Public Law 91-596; U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3; "United States v. Darby," 312 U.S. 100.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what is going on here. Congress never gave the EPA the power to regulate CO2. They could, but they didn't. So the EPA doesn't get to regulate CO2, until congress lets them.
Weird, the Supreme Court said that congress not only gave the EPA that power, but the EPA was actually required to regulate it [wikipedia.org].
Of course, when you stack the court with conservative activist judges inconvenient things like precedent don't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what is going on here. Congress never gave the EPA the power to regulate CO2. They could, but they didn't. So the EPA doesn't get to regulate CO2, until congress lets them.
Weird, the Supreme Court said that congress not only gave the EPA that power, but the EPA was actually required to regulate it [wikipedia.org].
Of course, when you stack the court with conservative activist judges inconvenient things like precedent don't really matter.
So a 5-4 majority that decides in a manner you like is not activist, but a majority that rules in the opposite direction is activist.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what is going on here. Congress never gave the EPA the power to regulate CO2.
Section 213(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act:
If the Administrator [of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and any other authorized representatives] determines that any emissions [...] from new [vehicles not used soley for competition] significantly contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, the Administrator [of the EPA] may promulgate (and from time to time revise) such regulations as the Administrator [of the EPA] deems appropriate [...]
IANAL, and
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the physical properties of carbon dioxide are legislatively determined?
Re: (Score:2)
Woman - adult human female.
Or do you think such physical properties can be legislatively determined? :)
Re:Headline missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress is supposed to make laws, not the Executive branch.
And they do. The EPA doesn’t make laws. There’s a distinction between rule-making authority and law-making authority. Congress can delegate to other organizations the authority to craft rules within the scope of that organization’s mandate, but Congress retains at all times the authority to pass laws that override those rules.
Without the ability to delegate rule-making authority, things would quickly fall apart. Congress isn’t capable of understanding the nuances of every single field (nor should we trust a few hundred people to be experts in hundreds of fields). They can’t keep abreast of every issue (the country is far too big). They can’t keep up with the fast pace of change (we sometimes need fast responses, but laws rightly should take awhile to pass so that they are properly considered). And they certainly can’t enforce those regulations (nor would we want them to). But delegating a lesser regulatory power while allowing that other organization of engage in enforcement.
Now, I agree that this issue is about whether the EPA has the authority to make the rule that it did, i.e. determining whether the EPA’s rule is within the scope of the rule-making authority delegated to it by Congress, but we can’t have an informed discussion about the topic if we’re conflating issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. Meant to finish that second paragraph with:
But delegating a lesser regulatory power while allowing that other organization to engage in enforcement allows for quick responses, specialization, and nuance in regulation, all while maintaining the balance of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thereâ(TM)s a distinction between rule-making authority and law-making authority.
A distinction the SCOTUS largely created itself in Chevron.
Without the ability to delegate rule-making authority, things would quickly fall apart.
Absolutely nonsense. Literally all Congress would need to do is once every few months pass "Bill to adopt regulatory recommendations put forth by $agency"
In most cases it would take no time at all. I strongly suspect congress critters and senators alike would avoid picking at the expert drafted minutia of the USFS latest tweaks to the years management plans. Because they know that their political opposition will at some point find the shoe on the
Re: (Score:2)
Literally all Congress would need to do is once every few months pass "Bill to adopt regulatory recommendations put forth by $agency"
In most cases it would take no time at all. I strongly suspect congress critters and senators alike would avoid picking at the expert drafted minutia of the USFS latest tweaks to the years management plans.
Yes, because no one would ever make a campaign ad of "Vote out Member X because they voted for that terrible agency rule!!"
Because they know that their political opposition will at some point find the shoe on the other foot and not want to create a precedent of grinding government to a halt.
Have you been napping through all the government shutdowns (and near shutdowns) the US government has gone through?
There's only one possible outcome of your plan. Government regulations get frozen in time at the moment your rule passes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because no one would ever make a campaign ad of "Vote out Member X because they voted for that terrible agency rule!!"
If such a campaign works, then it's probably a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely nonsense. Literally all Congress would need to do is once every few months pass "Bill to adopt regulatory recommendations put forth by $agency." In most cases it would take no time at all.
ROTFL, do you actually believe that? Congress hasn't passed a full budget in over a decade. If Congress had to pass bills to adopt regulatory recommendations absolutely nothing would get done in government. I understand many people would like that, but pretending it would work well is asinine.
Re: (Score:2)
No I have not missed those events at all. How well have those government shutdowns worked out for the people behind them? Hmm? Not very well. While to some degree the buck stops at the Resolute desk, the American public gets pretty pissed at congress when its seen as standing in the way of government actually working! Most American's recognize their tax bill does not shrink any because the government goes on upaid (meh half the time we pay the bums anyway) sabatical, they just see their SNAP card not get
Re: (Score:2)
So given all you wrote there, what makes you feel the government wouldn't fall apart if they had to pass bills to authorize all regulatory law? I believe you called that opinion absolute nonsense. It seems you agree Congress isn't capable of this, but you wish they were.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. This is not a "Climate Change" story, this is a "power of unelected bureaucrats to make law" case.
This has nothing to do with unelected bureaucrats making law, because the EPA's authority to create regulatory law is unquestioned (by anyone who knows what they are talking to and aren't trying to misinform). If it was, our entire federal system of government would collapse, as the article referenced in the summary mentions. It would be no less dire than if Congress had their ability to make statutory law removed by the Supreme Court.
The Constitution codifies Constitutional Law, which can be created by an
Re: (Score:2)
While your post is factually correct, it is far too long and complicated for some people to understand.
They long for a simpler time when the Leader's word was law and his reasoning unquestioned.
Trump, Putin, and Kim-Jong Un are their idols.
Re: (Score:2)
The US and the entire world is kinda screwed if it turns out they can't, because I can't see Congress taking appropriate action on climate change.
Comment missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The real issue here isn't Obama's Clean Power Plan itself; the question is whether the EPA has the authority to mandate that kind of plan. Congress is supposed to make laws, not the Executive branch.
The real issue here is that the Supreme Court is tossing jurisprudence to the wind.
The Judicial branch IS NOT supposed to go wandering around trying to preemptively clarify the roles of different government agencies. They're supposed to wait until there's clear evidence of an injury and then try to sort things out with as little disruption as possible.
The Clean Power Plan never took effect so there's clearly no injury there, and Biden Administration hasn't come up with a new rule yet, so not only is there no injury but there's no actual rule to evaluate. So what is the point of this case?
It boggles the mind that the SCOTUS who let Texas flagrantly violate the constitution on a technicality [wikipedia.org] is now deciding ignore the rules for a shot to dismantle the EPA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
technicalities matter. Being right is nice, but being technically right is better.
Standing is a pretty big technicality, you can't sue if there's been no harm, and there's isn't even a proposed rule that might go into law at this point so there's no harm.
This isn't Conservatives winning by careful attention to the rule book, this is Conservative Judges throwing out the rule book.
Re: (Score:2)
The Judicial branch IS NOT supposed to go wandering around trying to preemptively clarify the roles of different government agencies. They're supposed to wait until there's clear evidence of an injury and then try to sort things out with as little disruption as possible.
Which is exactly what is happening here. Lawsuits were filed, appeals were made, it ends up in the Supreme Court. That's how our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas' law has not been before the Supreme Court as of yet, they instead ruled that the overrule of the injunction would stand as no one had been harmed by the law as yet, since there were no cases being brought against any abortion providers yet.
Obviously false since abortion has effectively been outlawed in Texas. The reason no abortion providers have been been charged under the law is the penalties are so outrageous that none is willing to risk the literally unlimited liability they'd be subjected to.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of regulatory agencies is to establish and enforce policy within the guidelines of their enabling legislation. If every rule required separate legislative action by the Congressional sausage mill very little (even less than now) would get done. It also reduces the influence of the lobbyists -- although anyone can be bought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The challenge is finding that saddle point between competing interests. And, unfortunately, providing leadership so our grandchildren have a future. And all legislation should, IMHO, have a sunset date.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress ratified the creation of the EPA and the Senate confirms the head of the organization. So the EPA does, in fact, have regulatory authority through the act of Congress.
Death throws... (Score:3)
Poorly written summary. Grade: F (Score:2)
That first sentence is dripping with bias. There's really no point reading any further if you're not going to write objectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you do me a favor and rewrite the short summary with your unbiased style? I'm curious as to the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like what ArchieBunker was asking for as well. Please enlighten us.
Re: (Score:2)
In the most important environmental case in more than a decade, the Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a dispute that could restrict or even eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to control the pollution that is heating the planet.
How is that "dripping with bias"?
Is it biased to say that this is an important environmental case? This is an important environmental case.
Is it biased because it states that the resulting ruling "could restrict or even eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to control the pollution"? The resulting ruling could restrict or even eliminate the EPA's authority.
Is it bias because it implies that CO2 is "heating the planet"? I guess if you really want to be picky this could possibly be seen as
Specific example of a more general problem (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a specific example of a much more general problem. The problem is this: Your parliament (or Congress, or whatever you call it in your country) passes some general law. For example, "there shall be an EPA to regulate environmental matters".
To what extent is that a blank check?
More and more, we are ruled - not by our governments - but by unaccountable (and uncountable) bureaucrats. It's bad enough that there are more laws than anyone could ever read, but the number of laws pales in comparison to the number of regulations. And violating regulations is just as punishable as violating laws - because those regulations exist under color of the aforementioned "blank check". As I understand TFA, the EPA has taken it upon itself to regulate CO2. However, it has never been explicitly given that authority.
The landmark Clean Air Act of 1970 charged the EPA with protecting human health from dangerous airborne contaminants
CO2 is not a contaminant - it is a normal part of the atmosphere just like N2 or O2. The EPA lacks authorization to regulate it. All the US Congress would have to do, is explicitly authorize the EPA to regulate CO2. Failing that, there is a strong argument that the EPA is overstepping it's authority.
Re:Specific example of a more general problem (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, Congress delegated to the EPA the authority to regulate air pollution. Some years ago, a controversy arose whether CO_2 is "pollution." In my view, it is not. But the Supreme Court, with a liberal majority at the time, decided that it was.
As I understand it, the issue in this case is something different, namely how global warming "pollution" costs are calculated.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, Congress delegated to the EPA the authority to regulate air pollution. Some years ago, a controversy arose whether CO_2 is "pollution." In my view, it is not. But the Supreme Court, with a liberal majority at the time, decided that it was.
As I understand it, the issue in this case is something different, namely how global warming "pollution" costs are calculated.
True - and the current court may reverse that decision. That's why alarmists call this "the biggest climate case in a decade".
Re: (Score:2)
Some years ago, a controversy arose whether CO_2 is "pollution." In my view, it is not. But the Supreme Court, with a liberal majority at the time, decided that it was.
How else would you describe a man made imbalance to the makeup of our atmosphere? It certainly has a detrimental effect, unless you're going to argue that it does not.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is not a contaminant - it is a normal part of the atmosphere just like N2 or O2. The EPA lacks authorization to regulate it. All the US Congress would have to do, is explicitly authorize the EPA to regulate CO2. Failing that, there is a strong argument that the EPA is overstepping it's authority.
Yes it is. Excess CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels is absolutely a contaminant. Any other definition is utterly illogical and absurd. By your definition we could replace the entire atmosphere with CO2 and that wouldn't be considered contamination.
Re: (Score:2)
By your definition we could replace the entire atmosphere with CO2 and that wouldn't be considered contamination.
So by your definition, oxygen is a contaminant because if would be bad if we replaced the entire atmosphere with it? /facepalm
Re: (Score:2)
By your definition we could replace the entire atmosphere with CO2 and that wouldn't be considered contamination.
So by your definition, oxygen is a contaminant because if would be bad if we replaced the entire atmosphere with it? /facepalm
Yes, and if some industrial process was emitting so much oxygen that it posed a serious risk to the environment I'd expect the EPA to start regulating those emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
So by your definition, oxygen is a contaminant because if would be bad if we replaced the entire atmosphere with it? /facepalm
What would you call it? It might be a slight issue for things that require other gases to survive...
Re: (Score:2)
Takes very little oxygen in the form of ozone to make you sick, way less then CO2, which will also make you sick in small amounts.
This is like arguing that shit isn't a pollutant because it is naturally in the environment and part of the ecological cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is not a contaminant - it is a normal part of the atmosphere just like N2 or O2. The EPA lacks authorization to regulate it. All the US Congress would have to do, is explicitly authorize the EPA to regulate CO2. Failing that, there is a strong argument that the EPA is overstepping it's authority.
Yes it is. Excess CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels is absolutely a contaminant. Any other definition is utterly illogical and absurd. By your definition we could replace the entire atmosphere with CO2 and that wouldn't be considered contamination.
Replacing the entire atmosphere with pure oxygen would be a disaster too.
Re: (Score:2)
It would make global warming look downright chilly, at least for the few minutes after the atmosphere caught fire.
Re: (Score:2)
It would make global warming look downright chilly, at least for the few minutes after the atmosphere caught fire.
yeah, that would sure be an exciting day
CO2 is a pollutant. (Score:4, Informative)
CO2 is not a contaminant - it is a normal part of the atmosphere just like N2 or O2. The EPA lacks authorization to regulate it. All the US Congress would have to do, is explicitly authorize the EPA to regulate CO2. Failing that, there is a strong argument that the EPA is overstepping it's authority.
Being a contaminant is not a necessary feature of being a pollutant. As I mentioned elsewhere under this article our atmosphere is currently suffering from an over abundance of CO2 relative to ideal amounts for human life on earth. Meanwhile many of our activities release massive amounts of it as a by product. That is why CO2 is a pollutant.
CO2 also easily falls under the definition for "air pollutant" in the clean air act passed by Congress.
The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term “air pollutant” is used. http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent...
Read your quote, please: An "air pollutant" is an "air pollution agent". The second term is not further defined. This is a completely useless definition. Before you chastise me for chopping off the quote, let's look at another few words further:
The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents ... which ...
Recall your formal English classes. Continuing with "which" means that you are not adding to the definition, but merely explaining it. For example: "The mountains I saw, which were really pretty...". As opposed to "that", which does serve to refine the definition: "T
Re: (Score:2)
You're just mincing words, that definition reads clear as day to me, although obviously it is extremely broad. I mean, if you read literally the next sentence you find out what the agents are.
Legislation is written by people who know how to use English precisely. This is no accident: They have provided a self-referential definition that means absolutely nothing. Or else, anything you want it to mean. Which is how the EPA has been able to take it and run with it.
Ha, you don't have a lot of experience with this do you? It is not at all unheard of for vague language to be used in legislation in order to get the votes to pass a bill. Our own constitution is full of vague language.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: it's not even the next sentence, what the "agents" are is described in the exact same sentence that term is first used in.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Bill of Rights was written by states legislators who were master of the specific and wrote it for the population of the day and a distrust in the bearcats and lawyers of the day.
The only people who say the US Constitution is vague are the people way
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, yeah, that's why our Supreme Court has never ever had to rule on how to read the constitution in our country's 200+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
As I mentioned elsewhere under this article our atmosphere is currently suffering from an over abundance of CO2 relative to ideal amounts for human life on earth.
Really? I've spent many years trying to persuade people first that climate change is real, then that we need to do 'something' about it. But, in all those years, I never realised this was the reason our addiction to fossil fuel was problematic...
Still, I love learning new stuff. Being informed is my purpose, if you will. So, I'd really appreciate it if you could a) let me know what the ideal ratio of CO2 is in our atmosphere (for human life); b) explain the biological mechanism behind this figure and the ef
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you got me so good, you asked for a precise ideal number! How clever you are!
Standard denier "gotcha" question that isnt anywhere near as clever or insightful as the person who is asking it thinks it is. There isnt a perfect ideal number as the levels change all the time naturally but current CO2 levels at 40% higher then they have ever been for all of human history https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov] is not a good place to be.
We know that CO2 traps large amounts of heat to the earth and we know C02 levels
Re: (Score:2)
As I mentioned elsewhere under this article our atmosphere is currently suffering from an over abundance of CO2 relative to ideal amounts for human life on earth.
Not "currently." In the future, at current rates of release.
Re: (Score:2)
Ozone is a natural part of the atmosphere but if you get too much of it close to the ground or in a closed space it becomes a contaminant. C02 is the same. It may naturally occur in the atmosphere but that doesn't mean that adding more isn't considered contaminating the air. If you don't believe this to be the case try locking yourself in a room and start pumping CO2 in. You may find this to be a problem for only a short while though.
Re: (Score:2)
Ozone is a natural part of the atmosphere but if you get too much of it close to the ground or in a closed space it becomes a contaminant. C02 is the same. It may naturally occur in the atmosphere but that doesn't mean that adding more isn't considered contaminating the air. If you don't believe this to be the case try locking yourself in a room and start pumping CO2 in. You may find this to be a problem for only a short while though.
You can breathe pure oxygen for longer than pure CO2, but it could kill you after a while too.
Re: (Score:2)
To what extent is that a blank check?
As much as it needs to be by a bank account holder who ultimately decides how much that check can draw.
More and more, we are ruled - not by our governments - but by unaccountable (and uncountable) bureaucrats.
No. You're ruled 100% by your government. Your government and congress can at any moment override those bureaucrats. They are very much accountable and you can see that in practice as successive governments constantly pass laws back and forth expanding or limiting scope of said bureaucrats.
Now I have a question for you: Why is it bad that a dedicated department creates rules for you based on an informed de
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between 290ppm and 400ppm in CO2 is nothing compared to the changes in water usage at the same time. Trillions of gallons of water are sprayed into the air per year at the hands of man.
The evaulation of CO2 is regardless of a
Re:Logical conclusion (Score:4, Funny)
That stuff every single human exhales?
Get back to us when you exhale as much CO2 as a gasoline engine emits in the same amount of time.
While you are trying to do that, please keep quiet. You only show us how dumb you are when you are trying to think. We don't need to see your ugliness shining through.
I know this is Slashdot and the oxygen cycle is science stuff, but c'mon, it is kindergarden level science stuff.
By that measure, Putin is directly working to terminate as many point-producers of CO2 in Ukraine as possible.
I mean technically he should get a medal or something, right?
Wow, trying to set a new low bar? Why not start with you doing that to yourself if you really think it is a solution and I am pretty sure someone around here will award you a medal.
We are not amused by your low level trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
"Get back to us when you exhale as much CO2 as a gasoline engine emits in the same amount of time."
Don't push too hard with that argument. The engine is only emitting CO2 while it is doing work, a person emits CO2 all the time.
Consider a team of horses used a couple hours a day but eating and breathing all day vs a small tractor used only for those two hours. Tractors replaced horses because they were cheaper. And yes my grandfather's grew up using horses and were glad to get rid of them.
It would be an inte
Re:Logical conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
Don't push too hard with that argument. The engine is only emitting CO2 while it is doing work, a person emits CO2 all the time.
If you had any knowledge of what you're talking about you wouldnt be making this claim.
Average CO2 produced by a single person in their entire lifetime? 5 tons https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Average CO2 produced by the average American car in just one year: 4.6 tons https://www.epa.gov/greenvehic... [epa.gov].
Furthermore, I don't mean to come out you too rude here but that's just not a very smart comparison. I mean, people have to breath, cars do not have to run.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, I don't mean to come out you too rude here but that's just not a very smart comparison. I mean, people have to breath, cars do not have to run.
Hey now! Don't be rude! How dare you refuse to acknowledge and respect argStyopas and Mspanglers' choice not to breathe!?! Just because you and I want to doesn't mean anything. If they don't want to, they shouldn't be required to, and I am fully supporting them in their choice and personal freedom.
/s <-- I should post this too, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe that was silly to say but I think there's something really unhealthy for society in the volatile way a lot of people talk to each other online. I say this as someone who has and probably will in the future contribute to this. I do try not to though.
Re: (Score:2)
The galley slaves would be recycling CO2 that's already in the ecosystem, just like plants do. No additive effect. The cargo ship would be burning carbon that had been sequestered underground for millions of years which obviously is additive.
Re: (Score:2)
That stuff every single human exhales?
People exhale CO2 and that's a pollutant, so state government should be allowed to regulate people's reproductive choices, but not the pollutants from their fossil-fuel powered engines. If anyone can say that with a straight face, maybe they would make a good Republican!
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Every human also exhales water (in the form of water vapor). By your logic, that means the government should do nothing to prevent flooding. "Tear down those dams and levees, don't you know water is harmless?"
Re: (Score:3)
You complain about the "stuff every single human exhales" but the real problem is the stuff they are inhaling. All those humans consuming the planet's oxygen by inhaling it is going to kill us faster than the CO2 that they are exhaling.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to build a nuclear plant? Go ahead. But take a look at the price tag and timetable of Watts Bar and tell me who is going to foot that bill.
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of good could be started here, not the least enforcing that politicians must work within the system and through compromise and moderation instead of gaming the system to ensure the righteous cause gets enforced no matter what.
Sure, but a lot of good could also be ended here, like protecting the biosphere from economic activity that may render it nonfunctional for all. If ultimately what this decision is primarily used for is preventing doing necessary things then it will ultimately be evil, not good.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Pretty soon you'll be able to dump whatever you like into the rivers and poison the land with dead bald eagles.
Let nothing stand in the way of profit.
Re: (Score:2)
You have the same ability to do that now as you will in the future. It is currently against regulations, and will be in the future, no matter how the Supreme Court rules, as it isn't exactly possible to dump CO2 in rivers, nothing that happens with this legislation will effect the actions of dumping things in rivers.
Congress create laws, experts work out the details (Score:2)
Weapons technology is an evolving field and regulations have to evolve
Re: (Score:2)
Congress can consult with experts to get the l
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons technology is an evolving field and regulations have to evolve to match. I doubt bump stocks even existed when the regulations for machine guns were introduced. Gun experts at the ATF are certainly far more qualified to work out the details than congress. Medical researchers at the FDA are far more qualified to approve new drugs than congress. Automotive experts at the NTSB are far more qualified to set safety standards than congress. And yes, scientists at the EPA are far more qualified to set environmental standards than congress.
By the way, are you really arguing in favor of bump stocks? A device which allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire at full-auto rates (at the expense of not being able to aim it with any kind of accuracy)? A device with absolutely no useful application in hunting, target shooting or even self-defense? A device whose only purpose is to create mass causalities such as the Los Vegas shooting in 2017 that killed 60 people and wounding 411?
It's hard to regulate "technique to increase speed with which you can pull a trigger". You can see people achieving the same effect by hooking their thumb in their belt.
Re: (Score:2)
'Section 111(b) directs EPA to identify (“list”) categories of stationary sources that significantly
contribute to dangerous air pollution, and to establish emission standards for air pollutants
emitted by new sources in the listed categories.'
https://www.edf.org/sites/defa... [edf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
'Section 111(b) directs EPA to identify (“list”) categories of stationary sources that significantly
contribute to dangerous air pollution, and to establish emission standards for air pollutants
emitted by new sources in the listed categories.'
https://www.edf.org/sites/defa... [edf.org]
The overreach starts with declaring CO2 to be an air pollutant.
Sure, a past supreme court allowed it in Massachusetts VS EPA, and the current one may reverse it.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as how CO2 currently is defined as a pollutant, there is zero overreach so you are mistaken. And it very obviously is a pollutant in the context of power plant and motor vehicle emissions. The right wing extremists in SCOTUS may attempt to neuter the EPA but that would not change the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as how CO2 currently is defined as a pollutant, there is zero overreach so you are mistaken. And it very obviously is a pollutant in the context of power plant and motor vehicle emissions. The right wing extremists in SCOTUS may attempt to neuter the EPA but that would not change the facts.
You are missing the point (maybe on purpose). It was only allowed to be defined as a pollutant because of the previous court decision.
What one court giveth another court can taketh away.
If you want it to be law, pass a constitutional law. Then it's not up to the court.
Re: (Score:2)
The ATF has ruled that a rubber band is an automatic weapon. They didn't rule that a rifle, with a rubber band running from the trigger to the bolt handle was an automatic weapon, but that the rubber band itself was. I am not sure how they were not able to previously label bump stocks the same way, but even the NRA was against bump stocks, as they are dangerous because they massively decrease the accuracy of the rifle they are attached to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Clean Air Act is the law that was cited. You can disagree with the interpretation of the law, but the Clean Power Plan has legal justification.
'Section 111(b) directs EPA to identify (“list”) categories of stationary sources that significantly
contribute to dangerous air pollution, and to establish emission standards for air pollutants
emitted by new sources in the listed categories.'
Re: (Score:2)
consider if Trump had had such power to simply have one of his minions in the various agencies write rules at will
You mean like these rules/.regulations that he had changed in the months after he lost the 2020 election?
https://projects.propublica.or... [propublica.org]
Trump isn't the only President to do this and he won't be the last.
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution grants Congress the authority to pass statutory laws it sees necessary, sending them to the President for signature and enactment.
The Clean Air Act was passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President.
The Environmental Protection Act was passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President, creating the EPA, and defining it's chartered area of regulation.
The EPA has a director which is a cabinet-level position that is confirmed by the Congress, and Congress can disapprove for an
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Reduced unemployment
Nope, just reduce workforce participation.
Regained the trust and respect of our allies
Before the Afghan withdraw, maybe, afterwards LOL.
Successfully shared intelligence and led NATO to confront naked Russian aggression instead of cheering it on
If by confront you mean do nothing, then yes. You also seem to have forgotten which party sent blankets to stop the Russians and which sent Javelins.
Implemented Trump's horrible agreement to
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points to label you as a troll. Here are some of Biden's accomplishments in his first year who hit the ground running:
Successfully distributed the COVID vaccine to everyone who wanted one
$1.2 trillion infrastructure package
$1.9 trillion COVID relief deal
Highest appointment of judges since Reagan
Halt on federal executions - they increase the crime rate, kill innocent people and are more expensive than incarceration
Commitment to combating climate change
Reduced unemployment
Regained the trust and respect of our allies
Successfully shared intelligence and led NATO to confront naked Russian aggression instead of cheering it on
Implemented Trump's horrible agreement to get out of Afghanistan; not pretty but got it done
Dealing with inflation and supply changes that were inevitable after COVID became in decline
I have no idea what people like you expect. You should learn to judge leadership by its actions instead of allowing your brain to be washed by Russian propaganda.
Remember this well, this is the history of "Conservatives" in the United States
Sided with Britain in the American Revolution
Did everything possible to maintain slavery
Opposed black men to have more than 2/3 of a vote
Opposed women voting
Opposed Roosevelt's efforts to recover from the Great Depression
Demanded we go to war in Viet Nam
Opposed Civil Rights in the 1960's
Plumbed the lawlessness of a President with Nixon
Dramatically increased the deficit in the 1980's
Attacked Iraq based upon what was a known lie
Started the longest unwinnable war in US history in Afghanistan
Ballooned the deficit to historic levels when the economy was booming
Hopefully the "Conservative" majority in the Supreme Court will rise above politics and conserve the environment for future generations.
This is some incredibly ignorant shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats did everything possible to maintain slavery. As the south has become less Democrat, it has become less racist.
Democrats opposed civil rights in the 1960s.
Democrats created and ran the KKK, and BLM.
Democrats enacted every Jim Crow law ever on the books.
But of course, instead of taking responsibility for their sins, Democrats will simply gloss over that, and call their political opponents racist :)
More importantly, a pox on the house of Republicans and Democrats - the elite political class does not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Democrats are bad because of shit they stopped doing 50+ years ago, but modern Republican politicians are more than happy to embrace today?
Yes, southern Democrats were responsible for propping up Jim Crow and famously filibustering the Civil Rights Act in the 60's. They haven't done anything anywhere close to that since.
Yes, the guys that just got their asses kicked in a civil war founded the KKK in the 1860s. Don't you think that a few things may have changed since then? Like, for example, an entire
Re: (Score:2)
The Supremes don't have a "conservative supermajority"; they have
- a few members who want to enforce actual law (you know, passed by legislators or constitution ratifiers),
- a few members who are oddly inconsistent,
- and a few who just rule on whatever their "brave {identity-something-something}" is feeling today.
Their job is to interpret laws or ascertain the validity of laws, not enforce them.
Yes, which changes nothing that I wrote. Substitute the word.