EPA Moves To Repeal Finding That Allows Climate Regulation (apnews.com) 97
skam240 writes: President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would rescind a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
The "endangerment finding" is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.
The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would rescind a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
The "endangerment finding" is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.
What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Funny)
The laws of thermodynamics? I could see how those might be inconventient too.
Maybe they can repeal gravity? I've always wanted to be able to fly.
Re: What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but gravity's only a _Theory_...
Re: What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't let the boot of the corporate deceiver keep you down! Follow me my friends!
Re: What will they repeal next? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll be writing the next update from the hospital, but watch out, secure your surroundings before you walk off your balcony or they will get you! Big Gravity is strong!
Re: (Score:3)
Big Gravity is strong!
It's almost like they are a force of nature!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously! Just look up in the sky, you see clouds floating around, they don't come crashing down to Earth! Or those little bits of dust that are caught in a sunbeam, how do they stay up if gravity is pulling everything down, hmmmmm?
Gravity is just a scam invented by airlines you make you think you need to buy tickets instead of flapping your arms like birds do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican Parties version of ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republican Parties version of leave no man behind.
If we're going to die we're going to take EVERYONE with us.
Re: The Republican Parties version of ... (Score:5, Informative)
You joke, but there is a certain small faction that want to see the end of days and Rapture occur in their own lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
And then, there are the folks with the bumper stickers that say, "In case of rapture, can I have your car?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A small number of people with an outsized amount of influence over my country's government.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Lord, may the love of Jesus Christ damn these books and those who read them to Hell for all Eternity. Please grant us this most humble wish that they burn and burn and burn.
Oh, and Dear Lord, errrmmm...as you can see (points to the pews) the Faithful who don't read Harry Potter are awaiting the Rapture. We be ready to go on moments notice.
Dear Lord Responds: Say Greg Lock, it is good to hear from you. How're they hanging? (an audible gasp from the pews)
Pastor Greg: Uh...how's what hanging?
DL: Nevermind
Now, what did that "P" stand for? (Score:2)
n/t, just despair.
Next up, a declaration that pi equals three (Score:2, Insightful)
Fucking muppets. All because Trump got pissy that wind turbines are visible from his shitey golf course. Janey Godley had the measure of him
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
This has already been attempted: Indiana pi bill [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the point of what I was saying is that the Trump people are aping the worse idiocies of early anti-science US legislators, but now thanks to your assumption that people on here know nothing, I've had to spell out it in full instead of just alluding to it, and it loses some rhetorical power as a result.
Obvious motivation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:2)
It's ALWAYS about money.
Don't Look Up pretty much hits the mark.
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:3)
Money has it's uses.
So does clean air.
You can't pick one over the other. But they are.
Re: (Score:1)
Money has it's uses.
So does clean air.
You can't pick one over the other. But they are.
I'm pretty sure that money buys clean air. That's true in all kinds of ways but it is also a moot point today. Am I right?
If the claims are true that wind and solar power is cheaper than fossil fuels then we can have both clean air and money. The only reason to panic on this policy change out of the White House is if there's doubt on renewable energy costing less than fossil fuels because nobody is going to pay extra for dirty air.
So, can anyone explain the panic? As I see it this change in policy means
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that money buys clean air.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1... [etsy.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So, can anyone explain the panic?
The things that make wind and solar cheaper are being destroyed by decisions such as this one. EPA regulations can be costly for the fossil fuel industry, especially if they (rightly) declare CO2 emissions harmful. Other things that make wind and solar cheaper, such subsidies and free trade, are also being dismantled by the current administration.
Your argument also makes the mistake of viewing all of these things as static. Wind and solar may be cheaper now, but there's always supply and demand to contend w
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument also makes the mistake of viewing all of these things as static. Wind and solar may be cheaper now, but there's always supply and demand to contend with. If we started replacing all our fossil fuel power generation with wind and solar, that would create such a great supply/demand imbalance that costs would go up (especially with solar considering the tariff craziness). On the flip side, the less we use fossil fuels, the cheaper they will become (at least as long as they are still extracted and stored in large quantities).
I can agree to that,and this is apparently lost on people, especially those that make the claims on battery-electric vehicles being cheaper than internal combustion vehicles. When demand goes up then so will prices. If we have an increased demand on renewable energy then we can expect prices to go up. So what are we to do? By all evidence I see the "out" on this is nuclear fission. If we are to reduce CO2 emissions without a rise in energy costs then it must come with more energy from nuclear fission.
Re: (Score:2)
If we are to reduce CO2 emissions without a rise in energy costs then it must come with more energy from nuclear fission.
Nuclear fission will cost more. I'm not opposed to nuclear fission, but I'm opposed to any concern about costs. Reducing CO2 emissions is all that matters.
If we need government to force the fossil fuel costs higher then that exposes the lie that wind and solar is not in fact cheaper
We've already established, and you've agreed, that these things are constantly in flux. There are tons of subsidies and regulations for fossil fuels, too. Whether fossil fuels or wind/solar are cheaper will always be tied to choices made by the government. If fossil fuels are cheaper than wind/solar then the government is failing us.
If the goal is lower CO2 emissions then electricity production is the "low hanging fruit" on producing the most benefit with the least effort.
But this regulatory ch
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear fission will cost more.
What makes nuclear fission cost more?
Just take a look at a nuclear power plant. What in there is expensive? It's a lot of steel concrete. Many of the components used are mass produced items that can be had for cheap and delivered by Amazon or whatever. So, what makes nuclear fission expensive?
Regulation makes nuclear fission expensive.
I can hear it now, "we need regulation in nuclear fission to keep it safe" but we have regulation in a lot of things to keep them safe, so what makes nuclear fission so ex
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:1)
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously but the idea that this is a choice between the two has always been a lie. Nothing about acting on climate change has to involve the country getting poorer.
In fact I would present the contrary, that the Unites States has abandoned trillions in economic growth and manufacturing by conservatives making their platform "liberal accept science so we have to reject" it posturing for decades.
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:4, Insightful)
I’d pay for study that examines why conservatives constantly think about genders and trans people.
Re: (Score:1)
Iâ(TM)d pay for study that examines why conservatives constantly think about genders and trans people.
I can save you a lot of money on that. It's because the liberals can't stop bringing it up.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet here we are with the conservative bringing it above.
Re: (Score:2)
What you’ve pointed out shows the pointlessness of treating these people as though they’re arguing in good faith. Their actions are much better explained by accepting that they’re just awful and willing to say absolutely anything to get what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:1)
Yes it is about becoming more poor. It is about replacing working technology with inferior substitutes and often enough about taxing or regulating disfavored labor-saving devices or kinds of personal property out of existence.
Gasoline engines. Personal motor vehicles. Air travel. Reliable electricity. Functioning dishwashers. Single-family homes. Free checkout bags. Effective pesticides. Meat. Bottled water.
Pick one and I'll post several links from not Fox News showing an active main-stream environmental m
Re: (Score:2)
I was gonna respond with refutations to your points but then I realized... nothing you posted refutes my point, actually either of them.
"The liberals wanted to make my dishwasher use less electricity so I had to reject the very concept of science" is really your point
Re: Obvious motivation (Score:1)
Liberals are mandating that I buy a less functional dishwasher and are spinning it as it's going to save me money when I can see with my own eyes it is less functional.
If it were my choice to purchase a costlier but more functional device...okay. But no. I have no choice. I have to buy the piece of shit appliance/automobile/food because my betters tell me to.
It is very much analogous in kind (if not degree) to "let them eat cake."
Re: (Score:2)
If it were my choice to purchase a costlier but more functional device...okay.
My friend in christ, you as an American citizen in 2025 have access to a greater variety of dishwashers with a greater variety of cost and features then anytime in human history. From a $300 Fridgidaire to a $4000 Miele to buying a commercial "no electricity savings here" unit from Websturant right now, it'll be here on Friday.
Once again:
"The liberals wanted to make my dishwasher use less electricity so I had to reject the very concept of science"
Re: (Score:2)
It is very much analogous in kind (if not degree) to "let them eat cake."
I mean, comparing yourself to Marie Antoinette in this situation probably isn't what you intended, but it's certainly apt. Basically, you're saying that you're okay with destroying the world for future generations if it means you can use whatever damn dish washer you feel like. Sort of like Marie Antoinette spiting the starving masses who dragged her to the guillotine. Sure, she could have prevented the situation by living a more modest lifestyle, but fuck that!
There is no civilization without government, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's ALWAYS about money.
Don't Look Up pretty much hits the mark.
Furthermore, it's about short-term money. There will be financial losers due to the decisions today affecting climate change, but those are long-term effects. The government and many corporate folks suffer from temporal myopia.
Re: He's right.. (Score:1)
Says the Anonymous Coward... ðY(TM)
Re: He's right.. (Score:3)
Not being serious about combating climate change doesn't make science not real.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The "science" coming from an institution that goes to war for oil and subsidizes the industry and bases its currency on the petrodollar is very much in doubt.
Ad Hominem
They are simply advocating more austerity by limiting what we consume while they fly off to climate junkets in the middle east in their personal 747. It's a tragicomedy of epic proportions
Hypocrisy also don't make science false.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrisy also don't make science false.
If you told me that eating strawberries will kill me and I see you eating strawberries at every meal, and to have a strawberry daiquiri every evening then should I not have reason to doubt your beliefs in what you claim? If strawberries mean death then I'd expect you to avoid them as best as you can, potentially going to great lengths to have all those around you to also never touch a strawberry.
People that will speak loudly and constantly on the threats fossil fuels pose to our lives should be living out
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore isn't a scientist. I don't think most climate scientists are living lives of lavish wastefulness, taking private jets to their academic conferences. Your post hasn't provided any examples of why you should think that.
Politicians and celebrities may speak out advocating for green climate policies and then hypocritically fly around on private jets and excessively consume. But no one is asking you to listen to those people. They're asking you to listen to climate scientists.
If you have dismissed the en
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore isn't a scientist.
He certainly claims to speak with the support of science.
I don't think most climate scientists are living lives of lavish wastefulness, taking private jets to their academic conferences. Your post hasn't provided any examples of why you should think that.
If the person that claims to speak on behalf of scientists can't be bothered to act in a manner supported by the science then should that not raise some kind of doubt in the science?
Politicians and celebrities may speak out advocating for green climate policies and then hypocritically fly around on private jets and excessively consume. But no one is asking you to listen to those people. They're asking you to listen to climate scientists.
If the only people that we can see speaking for the climate scientists are those that act in ways contradictory to what they ask of us then shouldn't there be some doubt in what they preach?
Clearly not all of those calling for lower CO2 emissions are such hypocrites but th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you told me that eating strawberries will kill me and I see you eating strawberries at every meal"
I told you that eating strawberries will kill you. The fact that I could eat strawberries does not make what I told you false. It may be (to use what you are suggesting) that the rich can in fact safely eat strawberries (because, well, they are rich). That doesn't make them being harmful to you false.
"Why should I listen to a hypocrite?"
Well, perhaps because it would be in your own best interest?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, but by their logic, if climate change was real then the all powerful satanic cabal of gay jewish communists would have done something about it.
Fire up the jewish space lasers, me hearties, we're fixing AGW!
Re: (Score:2)
While there is a theory that there is "one God" and therefore "one truth" - because its "what God sees/saw" they do not believe that. They may claim to, but they also do not have a concept of "understanding" - again, there is only what they want, or what they don't: their brains can't pass this barrier.
They are certainly not Christians or Jews in the normal, every day, meanings of those words.
They are, in fact, id
Re: (Score:2)
So we are way past climate change here (Score:1, Troll)
Those companies are currently on the honor system and the only thing holding them back is the possibility that the Republican party might lose some elections.
And with the damage done to the voting Rights act and the voter suppression going around that possibility gets lower every year.
I would like to say that every person here who votes Republican
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's law of magadynamics (Score:1)
If you don't consider something life-threatening, it isn't...
Re: (Score:2)
IF CO2 isn't dangerous (Score:2)
How about we put them in a room filled with it and see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
The same could be said about nitrogen which comprises 78% of our atmosphere. :-)
Also, people make a lot of CO2. We need to do something about that
Re: (Score:2)
How about we put them in a room filled with it and see what happens.
How about we put people in a room full of 100% pure oxygen. Oxygen isn't dangerous, right? Except that it is quite dangerous in that concentration. If it isn't the threat of a runaway fire burning everyone alive, which could be set off by a simple static spark in a room devoid of all humidity as people could burst into flames because they shuffled their feet the "wrong way" over the floor, then it could be the onset of oxygen toxicity over a matter of just a couple hours of exposure.
So, sure, run your ex
Re: (Score:2)
Good!! (Score:2)
Now the scientific community has a real chance at bringing forward in-depth cross-referenced research and answer back to all those "un-scientific" beliefs circulting in this mis-informed, biased circle of selfish money-grabbing ancient business models. All on record and destined to jurisprudence.
Eco-friendly is expensive? Yes! ...for some, that'd be about zero. Let's see how many agree
But how much is a human life worth?
Re: (Score:1)
these people want to remain ignorant.
you can't convince them by being smarter than them
they WANT TO REMAIN IGNORANT
you need to come up with another tactic
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Now the scientific community has a real chance at bringing forward in-depth cross-referenced research and answer back to all those "un-scientific" beliefs circulting in this mis-informed, biased circle of selfish money-grabbing ancient business models. All on record and destined to jurisprudence.
What do you mean by this? How does this actually happen? The rich people have bought up all the media, and the current administration which they used their purchases to install dictates what can be "brought" anywhere, and threatens anyone who doesn't agree with them with a variety of horrors including against their family and peers.
It doesn't matter what a bunch of well-meaning nerds tell each other behind closed doors. They are an utter minority of the voting populace, and the current administration in han
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously believe in reality. Therefore you are "woke" and everything you say must be ignored!
I never liked this head fake (Score:3)
The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
It is telling to see text from the 60s reinterpreted to include climate change in the 2000's. Personally I think the text was obviously intended to address pollution (poisonous shit) that directly endangers public health......not contributes to global changes in the earths climate that can then endanger public health or welfare.
Personally I think the reinterpretation in the 2000s was wrong and opportunistic. If people think green house gases like those emitted as a result of breathing are harmful to public health due to contributions to climate change and they want regulation to that effect then lawmakers should vote on legislation to implement such regulation.
If one political faction is allowed to intrepret legislation one way it is hard to care about hurt feelings when another faction comes in and is allowed to reinterpret it in another. I am not addressing the merits of the underlying issue only my view that the process being utilized here sucks.
Re: (Score:2)