Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions

[Twilight Hue]

I don't. I think It's all pandering to corporate donors.

It's possible.

I think Carl Sagon explained the situation way back when he testified in Congress about climate change and how it works.

I'd go by the science so I'm not totally against measures to limit our toxicity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would be nice to see what is too much for plants and other co2 organisms to handle to keep the balance and use that in terms of enforcement.

Still, China is the biggest producer as well as Asia in general. There only so much the US can do without seriously hurting its own infrastructure in the process.

It's possible the decision was made on that basis but I'm only speculating here.

We already know that. There is no doubt in the sciences that we are far past what plants can handle.

And of course "China is the biggest producer". They have the world's largest population. On a per capita basis we still far out produce China when it comes to CO2.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's possible.

I think Carl Sagon explained the situation way back when he testified in Congress about climate change and how it works.

I'd go by the science so I'm not totally against measures to limit our toxicity.

If you have any questions about AGW I can probably answer quite a few of them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What exactly do you mean by this? It is abundantly clear that the Republicans need to go back to school. It is rather amazing. There are apparently no skeptics among the Republicans today. There are only deniers.

Do you know how many times I have offered to go over the uncontroversial basics of AGW with conservatives? They are often poorly explained in schools. Perhaps because of that Republicans seem to think that justifies ignoring them. But claiming to want to debate the topic and then refusing to learn the basics should not be allowed. Of course once one learns that basics and if one is honest eventually one will accept that AGW is a fact and that we need to act as soon as possible.

Ignorance can be so comforting.

That's why I listened to Carl Sagon as he explained things even a monkey could understand.

I would recommend all people not 100% familiar on how climates work listen to him.

It's a shame our tech couldn't accommodate well enough to where this issue is still alive. We shouldn't be this far behind in development of green technology but at least it's improving.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming...

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court.

But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject...

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision strips the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”

Kagan said the stakes in the case are high. She said, “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Something is badly wrong here. There is either something really wrong in how the justices are interpreting the constitution, or they don't care about the constitution and are corrupted by coal and oil companies, or something is wrong with the constitution. What I suspect is that they are corrupted, and have a big ego about their own power. There is a clear and present danger from climate change for this planet. I already have the conviction that things will be bad as a a result of climate change. It's just a matter of how bad it will be.

What the case was about was the EPA interpreting vague language in the law to essentially make their own law which only congress can do. The EPA cannot interpret the law on their own but needs congress to clarify what the law means. It is really a straightforward decision. The EPA can regulate the coal industry but they must do it per the law that was passed. They were overstepping their authority and making their own rules and laws that have significant affects on the economy based on vague interpretations.

major questions doctrine.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF12077.pdf

 

[Sand Dancer]

When does Ketanji Brown take her seat?

 

[tytlyf]

Republicans are bought by the fossil fuel industry. The Federalist Society cranks out the corporate agenda. Here comes dirty air and water.

Republicans really hate oversight (hurts corporate profits)

 

[metis]

And what is so terrible about decisions like this is the fact that so many Republicans think they're "pro-life", and yet they take positions on this and some other matters that are in reality quite "pro-death".

 

[pearl]

When does Ketanji Brown take her seat?

I think she has taken her seat, but the Court will not be in session until the fall. But it gives her the entire summer to study the cases that may be coming before the Court.

 

[pearl]

Ther actually was one win issued by the Court concerning immigration rule set by Trump that it may be terminated in Biden's favor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why I listened to Carl Sagon as he explained things even a monkey could understand.

I would recommend all people not 100% familiar on how climates work listen to him.

It's a shame our tech couldn't accommodate well enough to where this issue is still alive. We shouldn't be this far behind in development of green technology but at least it's improving.

I am listening to it right now, about half way through, and yes, he is doing a very good job.

 

[Quetzal]

Considering that the U.S. is one of the largest carbon emitters in the world, this is an example where the ideological extremism and harmful decisions of American justices and legislators may have detrimental effects that extend and reach far beyond American borders and quite possibly beyond the lifetimes of the justices themselves.

As an American, this is an incredibly powerless feeling for those of us who value something outside of our own sphere. Another example of a minority, charged with religious righteousness, making the world a worse place.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am listening to it right now, about half way through, and yes, he is doing a very good job.

His experience as an astronomer was invaluable in terms of climates and how they work on planets, not to mention on how interesting he is when he talks.

He's changed my views on climate change.

As a side note, it's amazing how congress acted then , and how it acts now.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I think she has taken her seat, but the Court will not be in session until the fall. But it gives her the entire summer to study the cases that may be coming before the Court.

Okay, maybe this is a stupid question or maybe I just forgot, but did they just make their last hurrah for the spring with the recent rulings?

 

[pearl]

Okay, maybe this is a stupid question or maybe I just forgot, but did they just make their last hurrah for the spring with the recent rulings?

I believe so as Justice Bryer is no longer a Justice and Ketanji Brown Jackson has been sworn in, the present term has ended.

 

[Truthseeker]

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court.

But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject...

More on this:

Kirti Datla, an attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit focused on litigating climate issues, said this case paves the way for Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies to challenge current and future EPA rules on planet-warming emissions.

“I think the biggest takeaway is that the court produced an opinion that did exactly what the challengers [GOP-led states and coal companies] wanted,” Datla said.

In its opinion, the court cut back agency authority by invoking the Major Questions Doctrine – a ruling that will impact the federal government’s authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety. It says that the biggest issues should be decided by Congress itself, not agencies like the EPA.

How the Supreme Court ruling will gut the EPA's ability to fight the climate crisis | CNN Politics

'Major Questions'
That belief states that federal agencies can't implement major policies without express permission from Congress. The major questions doctrine was rarely argued in federal courts by name before 2018, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis, but is growing in popularity.

This is a terrible ruling and influenced by politics.

 

[Quetzal]

More on this:

Kirti Datla, an attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit focused on litigating climate issues, said this case paves the way for Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies to challenge current and future EPA rules on planet-warming emissions.

“I think the biggest takeaway is that the court produced an opinion that did exactly what the challengers [GOP-led states and coal companies] wanted,” Datla said.

In its opinion, the court cut back agency authority by invoking the Major Questions Doctrine – a ruling that will impact the federal government’s authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety. It says that the biggest issues should be decided by Congress itself, not agencies like the EPA.

How the Supreme Court ruling will gut the EPA's ability to fight the climate crisis | CNN Politics

'Major Questions'
That belief states that federal agencies can't implement major policies without express permission from Congress. The major questions doctrine was rarely argued in federal courts by name before 2018, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis, but is growing in popularity.

This is a terrible ruling and influenced by politics.

The Supreme Court is compromised and illegitimate.

 

[Truthseeker]

Considering that the U.S. is one of the largest carbon emitters in the world, this is an example where the ideological extremism and harmful decisions of American justices and legislators may have detrimental effects that extend and reach far beyond American borders and quite possibly beyond the lifetimes of the justices themselves.

The consequences may extend way beyond the lifetimes of the justices, The conservative justices, I think, are political. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be political. This is the worst decision as far as the consequences since Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896 which said segregation was constitutional, in my opinion.

 

[Truthseeker]

Members of congress who are concerned about climate change need to pass legislation to address what Roberts suggests. The way this court is ruling on issues means the midterms and 2024 election is crucial to the future of America and the planet.

Yes, that's the implication of this.

 

[Truthseeker]

I understand that reaction. There is reason to be upset today.