Supreme Court deals Biden climate agenda serious blow with EPA decision

There is nothing in your political/economic outlook/ view point that I agree with.

 

- CO2 is not a "pollutant".

- Agencies cannot unilaterally make law.

- Congress does not possess the Constitutional authority to delegate its lawmaking powers to another body.

And that's just for starters.

 

CO2 is off-topic to my post. But since you mentioned it...

CO2 is a pollutant if it becomes excessive & continued due to human activities. Excessive & continued CO2 emissions not only contribute greatly to global warming, but also causes oceanic acidity & warming.

The effects of CO2 were known in the 1930's, and global warming (and its effects) was predicted in the 1950's, long before the development of computer modeling. See the following short video:
The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC

The EPA enforces its authority. I never said it "makes laws"..

Who said they did?

 

I never said that it had such authority. But it does have the authority to dictate regulations based on environmental & health assessments, and present it to Congress for action.

Authority is not really its problem. It must exercise it more frequently to be effective, and can do so through continued fines, sanctions, & other procedures. But funding & man-power is inadequate to effectively oversee and impose regulatory measures. Efforts at enforcement of these measures also involves lengthy litigation procedures & costs which further hinders the EPA's efficiency.

As a regulatory agency, Congress authorizes the EPA to write regulations that explain the technical, operational, and legal details necessary to implement laws. Regulations are mandatory requirements that can apply to individuals, businesses, state or local governments, non-profit institutions, or others.

It is up to Congress thereafter to compose & pass the recommended regulatory bills/laws accordingly. However, due to the efforts of lobbyists & bribery, Congress continues to lean heavily towards the interests of big business and will more likely de-regulate or not pass effective regulatory laws at all.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you referring to the EPA's Supplemental Environmental Projects?

I never claimed Congress "wants" them to have such authority (perhaps they did at one time). Just because Congress can, does not mean it will. Congress is too contaminated by parasitic interests. If Congress strove to be an effective branch devoted to the health needs of people and the ecosystem & its life-forms, then the EPA would have been given carte blanche to do what is necessary to fulfill its role as protector of our natural resources

 

To us it is.

 

Nothing wrong with the theory in a laboratory setting, but the earth is not a laboratory.

The observations do not line up with the theory - which is why the models are always so obviously wrong.

But of course that doesn't stop you activist types from pushing the lie to damage our economy and society.

Well, you're disagreeing with the SC ruling - which says the opposite.

Can't have it both ways.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Whether by the "necessary and proper" clause, or the "commerce clause"... nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can transfer its lawmaking powers.

--------------------------------------

Do you not understand the SC ruling??

 

Indubitably.

It was the question before the Court in this cas that the EPA just lost for exceeding their authority.

Yes.

I do not support our elected representatives turning unqualified control of our natural resources to unelected administration staff pukes with their own agenda.

It does not appear that you are much of a fan of a Free People ruling themselves.

 

Yikes...

Please stop voting - you're a threat to liberty.

 

Most on the progressive left side and the bicoastal elites are not…

 

It amazes me how little Americans know about the Constitution, governance, special interests, and who is actually behind big regulation and big government.

I own a small trucking company. The purpose of big regulation is not to "protect the environment or people". It is to disproportionately burden small business right out of business.

Big business is always pro-big regulation because they can absorb the costs up front, it wipes out their lower level competition, and they can then swoop in and buy up the assets left behind by the killed off competition, and then just pass the costs on to the consumer.

California is waging a full-on war against the trucking industry right now - especially owner-operators. It's really disgusting.

Y'all need to wake up!!!

 

Well, that was the majority ruling, not a unanimous ruling. If it was 6 on the left & 3 on the right, the case brought before the SC by [drum roll] West Virginia (as opposed to the majority of Americans) would've been dismissed as ridiculous and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The ruling has no logical basis because such a ruling would be expected from the pro-big business (and controlling) right arm of the SC.

Also, the EPA never exceeded its authority. It was a fear-based ruling by the right that the EPA would actually exploit its authority with greater efficacy now that Trump was out and Biden was in. In fact, as dissenting judge Kagan & U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar put forth, there was no reason for the Court to even hear this case given that the Clean Power Plan no longer exists, and the Biden administration is working on a new plan. "Yet this Court determined to pronounce on the legality of the old rule anyway," Kagan said, adding that "because no one is now subject to the Clean Power Plan’s terms, there was no reason to reach out to decide this case." Kagan said that the majority opinion "is really an advisory opinion on the proper scope of the new rule EPA is considering," and that the Court "could not wait — even to see what the new rule says — to constrain EPA's efforts to address climate change."

And let's not forget the sentiments of the 3 dissenting SC judges who...

described the seriousness of climate change and the risks posed if significant change is not made when it comes to carbon emissions.
"Congress charged EPA with addressing those potentially catastrophic harms, including through regulation of fossil fuel-fired power plants," Kagan wrote.
The dissent argued that Section 111 indeed authorizes the EPA to make broad changes because it allows the EPA to choose the "best system of emission reduction."
"The ‘best system’ full stop — no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here," Kagan said.

Well, that's exactly what Trump did --- TWICE --- until Biden removed the last one (Wheeler).

When the right says "free people", I hear "unregulated big-business".

 

LOL It's not a "theory in a lab setting".

Trends are extrapolated from observations & data derived from real-world sources in real-time --- ie, atmospheric devices, land & ocean-based devices, satellites, changes in wildlife, changes in plant-life, industrial emissions data/records, population data, survey of physical/chemical/biological materials preserved within the geologic record, climate data archives, solar activity data, volcanic activity data, and so on.

As for the video, you obviously didn't watch it. Please watch the video before commenting on it.

What was predicted in the 1950's, and without aid of modern computer modeling (or even satellites), has come to fruition. That was one of the points of the video --- that observations of trends in climate change & industrial emissions was so apparent only mere decades after the industrial revolution, that computers were unnecessary to make accurate predictions on where we would be decades later. Computer modeling today only adds to the accuracy of climate predictions. The second aim of the video was to illustrate that the global warming trend is primarily anthropogenic due to the rapid rise of greenhouse gases, and not due to natural causes (eg, solar activity, volcanic activity, ocean currents, planetary orbital/rotational changes, cyclical changes, etc.) which have been accounted for.

In fact, global warming was predicted as early as 1896.

Factoid: Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. By the middle 1900s, systematic measurements began which confirmed that human-produced carbon dioxide was accumulating in the atmosphere and other earth systems, like forests and the oceans. In 1988 it was finally acknowledged that climate was warmer than any period since 1880. By the end of the 1900s and into the early 2000’s the Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change was solidified as evidence from thousands of ground-based studies and continuous satellite measurements of land and ocean mounted in number revealing the expected temperature increase.

Factoid: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and various chlorofluorocarbons are all human-emitted heat-trapping gases. Among these, CO2 is of greatest concern to scientists because it exerts a larger overall warming influence than the other gases combined. The three main causes of global warming are: (1) Burning fossil fuels, (2) deforestation and (3) farming livestock.

Additional causes include population explosion, destruction of marine ecosystems and city development.

Earth's plant-life & oceans have been able to absorb much of the excess CO2 & heat (so far) which is why we're still alive. Do you see why we need to take care of our habitat?

We're talking about empirically & data-based predictions. The models have been back-tested and shown to be quite reliable.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
QUOTE: The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been? Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate. [...] The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections. [SOURCE]

Scientists can test how well climate models perform.
QUOTE: Scientists have been studying climate change for more than 50 years. Climate models have gotten better and better over time. One way to test how well models perform is to look at older models and see if their predictions came true. A study of 17 climate models going back to the early 1970s found that most of the models did a good job of predicting temperatures in the decades ahead. [SOURCE]

Scientists are more confident about some projections and less confident about others.
QUOTE: What is far less certain are the aspects of climate change that depend on people’s behavior. How much greenhouse gas will people add to the atmosphere, and how fast? Will people be able to adapt to climate changes? The answers depend on technology, economics, and policy. Because scientists cannot know the answers to these questions, they come up with a range of plausible scenarios and derive what outcomes might be expected from them.

Through observations and with the help of models, scientists are very certain that:

* Earth’s temperature is getting warmer due to human activity
* The impacts of climate change will be more costly and harmful the longer we wait to reduce emissions
* Climate models accurately reflect the main ways that greenhouse gases affect Earth’s climate system at the global level

Scientists are less certain about:
* Exactly how various emission scenarios will translate into local climate conditions
* Whether the climate might change in ways that did not occur in the past or that scientists have not been able to study because there are no records [SOURCE]

The monetary/capitalist system itself is a parasitic system and thus inherently damaging to all life. This parasitic economy feeds upon all that life depends on to thrive, resulting in what can be called a death culture. This steady deterioration will continue until we stop abusing our natural resources. It's not rocket science.

I suspect making money at any cost is more important to you than your health (and that of others). Do you have any idea how expensive being sick can be? Fact: 16 million people (6% of adults) in the U.S. owe over $1,000 in medical debt and 3 million people (1% of adults) owe medical debt of more than $10,000, totaling to at least $195 billion in medical debt nationwide. This sickness epidemic is caused primarily by human industrial & technological activities (driven to extremes by capitalism), not because humans are a sickly species, nor because of "germs".

I believe you mean "deny" rather than "disagree". I don't deny the recent SC ruling, but I do disagree with it (which is both blatantly partisan & insane).

With that said, I've been trying to make a point about how Congress can & does assign the EPA authority to enforce its regulations, just as it did with the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the EPA Law Enforcement Powers Act of 1988. Hence Biden's response to the SC ruling that he will "leverage every authority" to tackle the "climate crisis."

Not that it matters, but I never said or suggested that Congress could or was transferring any law-making powers to the EPA. Where are you getting this idea?

Sure I do. It limits how the Clean Air Act of 1970 can be used to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. I just see it as the second time the SC, within such a short period, has displayed its utter stupidity. Of course this is to be expected after Trump loaded the court with 3 more worthless judges, along with 231 others in the lower courts (per Mitch McConnell's advice). And how quaint that it is West Virginia (the land of coal & inbreds) that brought the case against the EPA to court (and at taxpayer expense), just as it did before in 2016 when the SC blocked Obama's Clean Power Plan.

 

Don't worry. I don't vote and never have. Voting for someone else to "represent" me in a medieval system is not my idea of "liberty". I can think for myself and make decisions for myself. I follow logic and know better what's best for me & how I should conduct myself than any "representative".

Besides, you voters are doing a bang-up job of ruining the nation on your own by participating in such an infantile & inherently corrupt system. The only true democracy is direct democracy within a socialist, fully cooperative money-less system where the fruits of labor, ingenuity & creativity benefit all in such a way that all life-forms thrive.

And in case you believe the myth about so-called "communist" nations, such nations were in no way socialist. Only the remaining small pockets of uncontaminated, money-less indigenous cultures can rightfully make that claim.

If the people put idiots & billionaires into positions of power/influence, it's a reflection of their gullibility & labile mentality. This will continue until people begin to take responsibility for themselves and stop either pointing the finger of blame at their so-called "leaders" or looking to them for solutions. They can then embrace their own power, and think for themselves & become self-governing.

As a side note: Those who attended the Jan 6 rampage viewed themselves as "freedom fighters". But they were anything but that. They had no independent thought of their own. They believed they were taking the first steps towards breaking free from tyranny, but were mere puppets of a tin-pot dictator, lemmings being led to a cliff edge by their "anointed" cult leader.

 

Everything you have cited only notes correlation not causation. This is not science it is merely guesswork.

 

What's there to know? Things are the way they are because we allow billionaires to rule. And the type of government & economy we have is designed to benefit the greedy. It's that simple. How can one expect anything good to come from such an arrangement? Is our system that much different than having a tyrannical King & his aristocratic nobility?

Besides, why must we "know" about the details of this medieval system that should've been abolished long ago --- a system spun off from a monarchy as a more "tolerable" (ie, incremental) method of robbing the working class in its pursuit of capitalism & imperialist expansionism? (Hence the early exploitation of slave labor & campaign of genocide.)

British founders migrated away from a single wealthy elite law-giver ("old money" monarchy) and established a party of wealthy ("new money") elite law-givers in the New World. Both sides exhibit virtually identical agendas --- empire-building.

However, in the US, the 3 branches of government are not the ultimate law-giver, but rather the managers of a nation-corporation beholden to the dictates & interests of non-elected figures (uber-elite "old money" families) pursuing a globalist agenda. American old-money families work in concert with European old-money families & the Holy See.

Was that its ultimate purpose when Nixon established the EPA, or is that what it's become over time due to big business infiltration? I'm asking because the EPA has taken many positive steps towards protecting the environment & people's health/safety:

EPA History: Documents about Agency Accomplishments
From regulating auto emissions to banning the use of DDT; from cleaning up toxic waste to protecting the ozone layer; from increasing recycling to revitalizing inner-city brownfields, EPA's achievements have resulted in cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land. [LINK]

And more from the EPA's site, a list of formal environmental laws & Executive Orders that the EPA has been charged with administering. [LINK]

Always you say?

Then why do industry lobbyists typically push for de-regulation?
---------------------------------------
The Deep Industry Ties of Trump’s Deregulation Teams [LINK]

Biden’s Regulatory Drive Sparks Pushback From Business Lobbyists [LINK]

Medical device makers spend millions lobbying to loosen regulations in D.C. [LINK]

Did anti-regulation lobbying fuel the subprime crisis? [LINK]

The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List. [LINK]

Senator Warren Outlines How Bank Deregulation Bill Poses Risk to Economy [LINK]

Even the UK & EU have to deal with big business lobbying efforts at de-regulation:

"Better Regulation": Corporate-friendly deregulation in disguise [PDF LINK]
------------------------------------
And why the recent SC ruling? If what you say is true about exploiting regulatory measures to edge out small businesses, wouldn't it have been better for the SC to expand, not limit, the Clean Air Act? With Trump out and Biden in, perhaps big business is feeling a pinch, or is feeling scared or more insecure about its future and not wanting to "absorb" anymore unnecessary costs?

With that said, there are different types of regulation.

Some benefit big business, while most do not. I believe when you say "big business is always pro-big regulation" you're referring to one type of regulation --- the type that benefits monopolies by restricting competition. Eg, the electric industry, which has been called the "last great government-sanctioned monopoly" benefited from regulation. However, there can be provisions within the framework of regulatory measures that do not benefit monopolies (eg, geographical restrictions on expansion). Regulations can also help monopolies in restricting competition by banning independent contractors (including owner-operators, as you mentioned).

I don't understand why you're complaining. It's just business. It's healthy competition. It's capitalism afterall. It's the American way? What's the problem?

It appears you want your cake and eat it too. Sorry, but if you love capitalism & business then you place yourself at the mercy of its blind rapacity. The capitalist system is no different than the mafia, but on a national (even global) scale. Some will win, most will lose. If you lose then you just weren't "smart enough" or didn't work "hard enough" --- so any successful capitalist will tell you. You'll just have to take the pain. Did you by chance think capitalism cares about your needs?

And just so you know...

Those who promote a "free market" system would not really want it if they knew what it really entails. A true free market system means absolutely no state (taxpayer) support.

In other words: no benefits, no bailouts or "economic stimulus", no tax-cuts, no subsidies, no corporate welfare, no protections (eg, patent/intellectual rights, trademarks or copyrights, lawsuit rights), no govt grants or contracts, no govt loans or start-up capital, no regulation/de-regulation, no money-printing, no monetary/banking management & stability, no worker benefits/compensation (the company must foot the entire burden), no free education/training & virtually no ready/qualified labor force, no anti-union laws, no laws that mandate the purchase/use of goods/services (eg, vaccines, PPE's, etc.), no security or defense services, no infrastructure, and no state-sponsored foreign ventures (militarily/economically) would be provided to any business.

All business hopefuls would be completely on their own & tossed into a pit of jackals --- every man for himself. NONE could survive because none would want to spend revenue on anything that could benefit the competition. No one would even want to work for a company knowing the high risk of being stamped out at any moment, and with no social net to fall back on. Businesses want taxpayers to shoulder the burden of constructing, managing & maintaining a stable market environment while the former reaps all the rewards. This is why the early colonies had to depend first on slave labor & debt slaves --- no market environment existed, no ready labor force was present to jump-start operations, and no reasonable person was willing to work the crappy jobs for free on behalf of the interests of profiteers. So they had to rely on forced labor.

This is why there has never been a free market system. It's a myth. All monetary-capitalist based market systems are parasitic & provide absolutely no benefit to society. They can only exist by feeding off a pre-existing socialist system/foundation --- ie, labor & the fruits of labor of society, which should be returned to the laborers who earned it, but is robbed by capitalists.

Any essential goods/services that private businesses currently provide, the state (public) can do it better, more efficiently, more sustainably, with less cost, and to the benefit of all citizens.

With all that said, let me ask you this: If your trucking company were to become highly successful & continued to grow because you beat out more & more of the competition, how would you feel about the other trucking companies & their workers (and families) if they were to fail?

 

Don't you suppose this is really your problem here then? You won't advance a standard. You would if there was one. So, because there isn't, it allows folks, like you to make a speculation and then opine about imaginary future harm. You do this because you are comfortable because so many folks in the media have joined together to market and push this narrative.. It doesn't make the narrative true of course. Far from it. So, when presented with actual data that essentially undercuts your narrative, you flee from authority and claim that you cannot be held to provide the actual facts because you "aren't a climatologist"... Funny.

 

Are you going for the prize to see how many ridiculous straw man that you can create from the very thin air?

 

It's only what they do when they can't argue with ration and logic and common Sense.

They appeal to emotionable hyperbole and Hysteria.

 

This was about CO2 regulation. Did Congress grant that authority to the EPA, yes or no?

 

Are laboring under the false impression that the purpose of the Court is to stamp approval on public opinion rather than apply past facts to the law and constitution?

The basis is Separation of Powers. Congress is the Lawmaking Body, because it is made up of OUR elected representatives. We are a Self Ruled People. We have no king issuing decrees. Why ever do you think that you live in society ruled by the decrees of the unelected? It's like Mufasa was gently explaining to Simba, you have forgotten who you are!

What is forgotten and lost can be remembered and restored.​

Yes it did. The vile unaccountable clowns at the EPA have gone from pooping in the hallways to illegitimate arrogation of authority.

https://www.huffpost.com › entry › epa-pooping-hallways_n_5530650
EPA Employees Asked To Stop Pooping In The Hallway - HuffPost
"EPA Employees Asked To Stop Pooping In The Hallway. Federal employees at the Environmental Protection Agency have been instructed to stop defecating in the hallway of a regional office in Denver, Colo., according to an internal e-mail obtained by Government Executive."

Filthy slobs. They belong on the streets of SF.

 

When the climate scientists tell me there's too little carbon dioxide I'll be concerned.

You're just trying to deflect.

 

This is an accurate representation of what happened.




A.F. BrancoJune 30, 2022
0
North Is Still North
Clarence is a strong warrior against the domestic enemies of the U.S. and its constitution. Political cartoon by A.F. Branco…

 

No, I’m not actually.




A.F. BrancoJuly 1, 2022
0
Liberty Wins Again!
The Supreme Court rules against the tyrannical EPA administration inflicting its unconstitutional policies against America. Political cartoon by A.F. Branco…

Read More »

 

The whole world benefits when our air is dirtier and water unsafe to drink or bath in.

What the hell is wrong with the damn environmentalists.

I pray for the day when chemical companies can set their own standards and profit reigns over environment once again.

God bless the Supreme Court.

 

The issue of clean and drinkable water and having it so we can see it’s beautiful and saftely fish it and swim in it was never an issue before the court. Neither was clean clear healthily breathable air and air that makes our environment beautiful an issue. Congress clearly has authorized and EPA is lawfully acting on those matters.