Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases 109
UnknowingFool writes In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA on some limits to greenhouse gases but also upheld other limits. In a 5-4 partial decision, the high court ruled that EPA overstepped their authority in requiring permits only for greenhouse gases for new and modified facilities using the Clean Air act. Such regulatory action can only be granted by Congress. But in the same case on a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the EPA can enforce greenhouse gas limits on facilities that already require permits for other air pollutants. This leaves intact most of the new regulations proposed by the Obama administration earlier this month as many coal plants produce other air pollutants that can be regulated by the EPA.
Re: (Score:1)
Absorption spectra do not exist.
--A very important lesson to us all.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed a very important lesson that most people don't have a clue what the debate is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, it's not like I was responding to a specific incorrect assertion of fact, or anything. Please pretend I was responding to some "greater" debate rather than one of the many specific kinds of ignorance that comprise the denialist position.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason. It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate that will eventually result in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of death and billions of dollars of property damage, or anything like that ...
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature [economicpo...ournal.com])
Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself :-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature [economicpo...ournal.com])
Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself :-)
Apparently because that's all you've got. Pointing to a Wikipedia article created and religiously (yes) guarded by climate change alarmist politicos really doesn't make much of an argument, does it?
That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over. And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.
Re:Give me a break. (Score:4, Insightful)
That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over.
Great, so you got a link to that survey of climate scientists where they all say it's a scam?
And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.
Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented, the only way to even try to have a dialogue is to reference an impartial source like a survey of a large numbers of scientists. Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something, they *could* all be wrong ... but they probably aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented
That's rich, from an evangelist like you. There are so many facts getting in the way of evangelizing the AGW alarmism that the alarmists have just taken to saying "Well what difference does it make? We should make all these policy changes even if it's wrong!" Really. Here are a few direct quotes for you [wordpress.com].
Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something
Well, they do believe something. Just not catastrophic climate change, or current driver of the most recent changes. Because that was not the question [wsj.com], even though it's claimed that it was.
Re:Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms
That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.
Re: (Score:2)
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms
That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.
...according to EPA reports without any substantiating data. In fact, they didn't even follow basic Federal guidelines, and that's according to the agency's own Office of Inspector General:
Re: (Score:1)
Really? Saying (in a sarcastic fashion) that "liberals" might be motivated by something other than latent evil is trolling?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I would bury the hatchet with the environmentalist wackos if they would en masse press for nuclear power.
But we both know it's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
This is hugely delusional. US history is filled with examples of government support for big business, particularly since the start of the industrial revolution. All kinds of interesting uses of the law were developed to further this. It was (and remains) quite rare for the law to be anti-big business.
For example, during the industrial revolution, troops were sent in on many occasions, under the law, against workers trying to get better working conditions or reasonable pay.
Further, on many occasions, troo
Re: (Score:2)
What I wanted to point out is, that painting regulations as anti-big business without further elaboration is completely misguided, as you can paint anything as anti-big business, even the most pro-business laws. And property laws are the most pro-business laws of all, as they actually create the property you can trade.
Re:Give me a break. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing inherently anti-big business in the recommended solutions, just big business (especially the fossil fuel industry) as it is currently practiced. There are plenty of big businesses that are more or less environmentally responsible and they don't get that much attention for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Tesla selling as many cars as it can make, and out-doing the existing big business carmakers at Tesla's type of car?
Re:Give me a break. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, Big Business is doing a fantastic job of destroying the middle-class without the EPA even being involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
And NOT enforcing, say, banking or clean air regulations.
Existing regulations (as approved by Congress) is one thing. Adding new categories to those regulations and demanding they be enforced minus legislative oversight is another.
Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for them to bad dihydrogen monoxide from all foods.
Joking aside, you made my point, and then pointed out that this is not a new thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should see what prolonged exposure has on skin. I got some on my fingers while washing and it wrickled up like a crumpled tissue. The effect seems to be temporary, but skin surely shouldn't do that.
Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.
But don't let me stop you from making things up, just because your ideology demands that the science be wrong, thus imagining acting on the science is wrong, thus twisting your mind to invent new and interesting ways of stating the opposite of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.
Yes and no.
In concept, yes. In practice, it required someone with a whole lot of money and legal expertise to perform that check. The Judicial system as a check should be a near-last resort, not the first thing you do to chuck a bad and un-legislated law.
Re: (Score:2)
What "un-legislated law" are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he refers to regulations - the very common process in which congress, rather than micro-managing every detail of a law, just deligates authority within a defined area to another agency. That's how most government departments operate. The FCC doesn't have to go to congress to pass a new law every time they reallocate some spectrum.
Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:1)
Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
The function of the executive agency is precisely to create and uphold rules. Most people think congressional laws detail out rules; this is mostly wrong. One clear example showing the difference between agency rules and laws is the American Disabilities Act of 1990. It's a very short law, but the executive agencies that enforce the laws have well over 100,000 pages of rules, none of which are defined verbatim in the law.
Congress's job is not to micromanage, it is to appropriate funds, enact legislation and oversee the executive during the life of the legislation.
Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you have rules that are too detailed for Congress, then those are rules which should not exist at the federal level.
A lot of legislation (at all levels) is simple wording, with an understanding that an agency more equipped to work out the minutiae will do so.
Those administrative agencies (like, say, the EPA) figure out that minutiae, and those details (functionally speaking) become law. Chevron v EPA is a cornerstone of administrative law. [Congress made broad stroke laws, EPA enforced it as they interpreted it, Chevron sued, and SCOTUS made clear that regulatory agency administration is - pretty much - law.]
Re: (Score:2)
Congress mostly gives the minutiae to regulatory agencies .
The EPA (in the famous Chevron case) and in this one just does what it needs to do, and unless you can prove they were out of their minds when they wrote their policy to clarify law in front of an ALJ, you're screwed.
Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it is Congress' obligation to be extremely specific in the laws they write. The nondelegation doctrine [wikipedia.org] is an important concept in American jurisprudence.
J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States [cornell.edu] helped establish the rules under which power can be delegated, essentially stating that Congress has to establish an "intelligible standard" for the executive or legislative branch.
Congress can't simply tell the executive branch, "Hey, you guys control pollution so we can have a clear sky." Congress has to establish an intelligible standard upon which an administrative agency can build regulations AND Congress has to grant the power to the agency to establish those rules. Typical statutes might read, "...xxx agency is empowered to institute regulations in support of this statute."
The function of the executive agency was not to create rules but, rather, to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States. The fact that Congress has found numerous ways in order to delegate its power to the executive agency doesn't change the fundamental design of the system. This delegation of power is what's lead everyone to believe the executive branch holds more power than it really does.
The most unfortunate thing about Congress' abdication of power to the executive branch using so many specific delegations is that we've created a situation in aggregate where the executive has an almost blanket delegation of Congressional power; a delegation that would be unconstitutional if granted via a single Congressional action.
Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:2)
None of what you are saying changed the fact that congress has the right to delegate. The case you mentioned is built on the premise that congress has the implied authority to delegate so long as intelligible standards or principles are enacted. A world in in which congress cannot effectively delegate for a country as large as as the US is a country that is likely to fail.
Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:3)
An additionally critiscism I have of your point is that the legal standards for "very specific" is next to meaningless. Evolving standards and education levels of the citizenry make it impossible to be explicit. FDA and Texas Constitution are perfect examples. FDA regulates "drugs." Under you standard some may argue that "drugs" as defined under statute is too broad and not specific enough. Should congress enact legislation with a list of approved drugs and treatments that the FDA should regulate? I think n
Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks the US Constitution is an explicit legal document hasn't read it. Two words: implied powers.
Re: (Score:2)
The FDA regulates "drugs" under the very thorough Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Drugs, food and cosmetics that come under the jurisdiction of the act are quite well defined, as well as what and how the FDA is to regulate them. The statute doesn't say, "The FDA should regulate drugs." The statute defines what is a drug, what conditions a drug must meet in order to be regulated and how it is to be regulated. What causes any particular drug to be regulated is that it meets the definition and conditions
Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (Score:2)
Yet the FDA has enacted hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations during its time, none of which were voted on by the legislature...just like most administrative laws and agency rules.
Thus the issue is not whether congress should be explicit or not in crafting legislation, it is whether congress is crafting reasonably interpretable standards that's can be effectively interpreted and realistically implemented in practice. So basically this boils down to good laws and bad laws. I don't disagree that the
That's what happens when Congress is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then Congress shouldn't give them that power? That was the court's finding, that Congress had already authorized the EPA to regulate any gases produced at a plant that also produces named pollutants. So CO2 gets lumped in with the rest under their blanket authority over existing polluters. Which is why they struck down the ability to expand their authority to non-polluting entities. It was outside their existing jurisdiction.
Congress does that a lot, authorizes blanket authority, and then bitches when it gets exercised. It's like they don't read the bills they pass or something...
Re: (Score:2)
Redefine what "is" is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Redefine what "is" is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They by that "logic", since a dog excretes crap naturally, why shouldn't my dog be able to crap all over your yard? ...and rainwater can be a pollutant.. Haven't you ever heard of acid rain?
Re: (Score:1)
Now you are mixing things up, more specifically, sulfur dioxide (which is a pollutant) and rain (which is not) to get acid rain.
Re: (Score:2)
So... creation of greenhouse gasses is not pollution?
According to SCOTUS, it isn't, under the existing laws of the US.
And I doubt Congress would change that anytime soon. Until then, the EPA only gets to regulate CO2 coming from facilities it already regulates under existing laws.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Too bad my mod points are all gone now, you deserve +3.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed you are very correct, this government is become a dictatorship, abetted by a feckless Congress. It matters not whether you're lib/con or dem/repub, this is dangerous when the next changeover of power occurs, and it will occur. What the President has loosed now will be used against his party in the future.
Too bad my mod points are all gone now, you deserve +3.
So what is the appropriate role for Obama in this? It seems odd that he would be expected to act as a passive administrator when he was elected with a policy based mandate to a much greater degree than congress.
Re: (Score:2)
The president takes all credit and all blame for every action commited by the government at any level during their term.
That's just how it works. That's the cost of turning the office of president into a superstar position.
It was never intended to be like that.
Re: (Score:1)
They have Congressional authority. That is the whole "delegation of powers" thing where Congress is too lazy to legislate so they just delegate the power to an unaccountable, unelected agency that lives under the executive branch, which can regulate "as it sees fit."
Re: (Score:2)
So sit back and enjoy We shall emerge victorious. We have the blueprint, and the means. It's a proven strategy.
Headline is backwards (Score:5, Informative)
What the Supreme Court actually did was to disallow direct regulation of CO2 unless the EPA actually wants to attempt to regulate ALL producers of >250 tons annually, which is impractical.
What the EPA intended to do was to regulate producers of >100,000 tons annually, with the possibility of reducing that threshold over time as we get handle on the issue.
What the Supreme Court did leave intact is the ability to regulate CO2 production by producers who are already regulated for other reasons 'anyway'.
That does happen to match up fairly well with what the EPA intended to do originally, but does not allow the flexibility to regulate CO2 producers who do not produce large amounts of other pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, since the plaintiffs of the case were arguing that they should not be allowed to be regulated at all it's not backwards, so much as not as precise as necessary.
Which is why we have a summary and article.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, Congress is currently split with the Senate controlled by Democrats, and the House controlled by Republicans. Laws cannot pass unless both chambers sign off on the law.
Re: (Score:1)
we've seen that before. It ends in dicatorships every single time. A bad democracy is better than a good dictatorship
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is ruled by Republican fucktards
This whole voting thing.... It should really be limited to non-profit employed Portlandia types, shouldn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Either way it is great that SCOTUS is allowing the EPA to ignore Congress.
It didn't. Quite the contrary.
SCOTUS actually ruled pretty much the opposite: it said -- in so many words -- that the EPA can NOT write its own rules contrary to the laws explicitly laid down by Congress. Quotes from the actual ruling:
An agency has no power to âoetailorâ legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.
Aâ(TM)s interpretation would also bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPAâ(TM)s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
In effect, but not in so many words, what SCOTUS ruled is that EPA cannot effectively regulate greenhouse gases, today. Because by law, it must require the polluters to use the "Best Available Current Technology" (BACT) which applies to their current or proposed operations.
Re: (Score:2)
Ãoetailorà = tailor
AÃ(TM)s and EPAÃ(TM)s = EPA's
And even THAT didn't come out right, because Slashdot will not even accept as input many characters that it will display.
Meh. Years of complaints by many people never prompted them to fix that, so I'm not even going to bother.
Re: (Score:2)
The term is character set. The site itself is served as UTF-8, but the posts are interpreted as iso-8859-1 (more or less equivalent to ASCII). UTF-8 uses a variable-length encoding to represent characters, and iso-8859-1 is single-byte. While it is uncommon these days, it's hardly non-standard.
“Fortunately — for those of us who have bothered to learn a little HTML — entities work just fine.”
I'm not suggesting you become a web developer, but maybe learning something instead of complai
Re: (Score:2)
The term is character set. The site itself is served as UTF-8, but the posts are interpreted as iso-8859-1 (more or less equivalent to ASCII). UTF-8 uses a variable-length encoding to represent characters, and iso-8859-1 is single-byte. While it is uncommon these days, it's hardly non-standard.
I have been a professional web developer for many years now and I have to deal with internationalization and different character sets quite frequently. So pardon my use of the word "formatting", but I do know how this works.
And complaining is perfectly fucking appropriate when people have been telling Slashdot for many years now that their character interpretation is messed up. Just recently I had to take more than 70,000 documents that were originally created using Microsoft products, and so were in Lat
Re: (Score:2)
> SCOTUS actually ruled pretty much the opposite: it said -- in so many words -- that the EPA can NOT write its own rules contrary to the laws explicitly laid down by Congress.
Yeah. I listened to the live oral arguments for this case, because I'm a nerd I guess, and the justices were very, very skeptical of the EPA's position on the matter. They fully understood that maybe 250 tons of CO2 isn't as bad as 250 tons of cyanide or whatever, but they really didn't want to go down the road of letting the EPA w
yes and no (Score:1)
Long story short (Score:1)
The EPA can continue to undermine the economy in pursuit of fairy tales.
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA can continue to undermine the someone's finance in pursuit of fairy tales.
There, fixed that for you. By the way, that is a good thing for an actual economy, as it is stopped from drowning, draught, etc. Some of these fairy tales are already fairly convincing.