Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions

[Shaul]

The Court did not rule on whether controlling CO2 was a good thing. It ruled specifically on whether the EPA, based on its current legally derived powers, had the authority to do so. It doesn’t. So the Court was correct in its ruling.

There is a ready remedy for this for those that want the EPA to have such authority. Persuade Congress to pass the appropriate legislation to authorize it.

 

[fantome profane]

There is a ready remedy for this for those that want the EPA to have such authority. Persuade Congress to pass the appropriate legislation to authorize it.

Sure, just convince a bunch of total morons who are paid by fossil fuel companies. Easy.

 

[Shaul]

Sure, just convince a bunch of total morons who are paid by fossil fuel companies. Easy.

Well the majorities in both the House and Senate are Democrats. What makes you think they are “total morons who are paid by fossil fuel companies”?

 

[fantome profane]

Well the majorities in both the House and Senate are Democrats. What makes you think they are “total morons who are paid by fossil fuel companies”?

Where do you think Joe Manchin’s money comes from?

 

[tytlyf]

Well the majorities in both the House and Senate are Democrats. What makes you think they are “total morons who are paid by fossil fuel companies”?

A good indicator of someone corrupted by the Fossil Fuel industry is their stance on climate change.
If they deny the science = corrupt

One of the many main reasons I don't vote Republican

 

[Truthseeker]

The Court did not rule on whether controlling CO2 was a good thing. It ruled specifically on whether the EPA, based on its current legally derived powers, had the authority to do so. It doesn’t. So the Court was correct in its ruling.

There is a ready remedy for this for those that want the EPA to have such authority. Persuade Congress to pass the appropriate legislation to authorize it.

Good luck doing that! They put it in the hands of a congress that won't pass it. The oil lobby controlls too many members of that congress.

 

[metis]

The Court did not rule on whether controlling CO2 was a good thing. It ruled specifically on whether the EPA, based on its current legally derived powers, had the authority to do so. It doesn’t. So the Court was correct in its ruling.

If this is supposedly true, then why didn't previous SCOTUS renderings for decades conclude the same thing? On top of that, this decision was split.

I do believe Congress needs to take this up and do what is necessary to protect our planet, but this right-wing Trump-oriented party simply will reflect the saying "We have the best government money can buy".

 

[Shaul]

Where do you think Joe Manchin’s money comes from?

It wasn’t from the Ukrainian energy conglomerate Burisma. Burisma gave its bribesdonations to Biden.

 

[Shaul]

If this is supposedly true, then why didn't previous SCOTUS renderings for decades conclude the same thing? On top of that, this decision was split.

I do believe Congress needs to take this up and do what is necessary to protect our planet, but this right-wing Trump-oriented party simply will reflect the saying "We have the best government money can buy".

For several reasons. One is that the EPA only started to try to regulate CO2 during the Obama administration. Another is that the Supreme only decides case that work through the lower courts and appeals first. Which can take years, such as in this case. That’s it in a nutshell. As for a split decision, most Supreme Court decisions are. And the dissenting opinions focused on the putative environment effects and not the legal effects. Again, as my original post stated, the Court ruled on the Law, not the environmental effects. Which is precisely what the Court is supposed to do.

 

[metis]

For several reasons. One is that the EPA only started to try to regulate CO2 during the Obama administration. Another is that the Supreme only decides case that work through the lower courts and appeals first. Which can take years, such as in this case. That’s it in a nutshell. As for a split decision, most Supreme Court decisions are. And the dissenting opinions focused on the putative environment effects and not the legal effects. Again, as my original post stated, the Court ruled on the Law, not the environmental effects. Which is precisely what the Court is supposed to do.

Since there was a dissenting opinion [3], that shows that what you say was certainly no slam-dunk.

I wish Congress would have already seen the necessity of reacting positively to climate change, but this got politicized mostly by the right who have taken a position that favors fossil fuel companies and other related industries versus reacting to global warming in a scientifically sound manner. This threatens our planet more than any other thing as Stephan Hawking lamented a decade ago.

 

[Shaul]

Since there was a dissenting opinion [3], that shows that what you say was certainly no slam-dunk.

I wish Congress would have already seen the necessity of reacting positively to climate change, but this got politicized mostly by the right who have taken a position that favors fossil fuel companies and other related industries versus reacting to global warming in a scientifically sound manner. This threatens our planet more than any other thing as Stephan Hawking lamented a decade ago.

You had asked me why it hadn’t been done before. That is the question I answered. That there were dissenting opinions is tangential.

If you wish Congress to act, contact your representatives. I wish Congress addresses the issue through common sense measures actually based on science and not on green hysteria and pandering to alarmism.

 

[metis]

You had asked me why it hadn’t been done before. That is the question I answered. That there were dissenting opinions is tangential.

You are negating what should be obvious, namely a split decision which implies that there's wiggle room on this.

If you wish Congress to act, contact your representatives. I wish Congress addresses the issue through common sense measures actually based on science and not on green hysteria and pandering to alarmism.

As I previously stated, I do wish Congress would address this and soon, but the part whereas you say "... actually based on science and not on green hysteria and pandering to alarmism" is quite telling, and what it's telling me is that you are far more into partisan politics than those of us who are actually in science and go by the data.

Do you have some sort of death wish for Planet Earth? Do you even pay attention to the research by climate scientists and NASA, the NAS, NOAA, and even our own DoD?