Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

#11

Post by microcolonel »

magicalist wrote: post #8
microcolonel wrote: post #3

Seems like the main points are that they are not going to propose again the same rules which were ruled unconstitutional, and adjust how aggressive the targets are. > “It could foreclose a new administration from doing something more ambitious,” she said. I think I get what they're trying to say here, but there's nothing the Supreme Court can do during a moderate administration to "foreclose" more aggressive targets…

> Seems like the main points are that they are not going to propose again the same rules which were ruled unconstitutional It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it was stayed by the Supreme Court while a lower court decided if the rule was within the EPA's regulatory power under the Clean Air Act. Then the Trump administration came into power and asked the court to put the case on hold while they rewrote the regulations.…

> It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it was stayed by the Supreme Court...

My misunderstanding from all the words going around.

> If the Supreme Court rules that the EPA "only has authority over environmental infractions at individual plants, like chemical spills and improper handling of hazardous materials", a rule from the EPA like this might not be possible again.

AFAIK the Supreme Court does not tend to rule on whether you "only" have the authority to do something, they're more likely to rule that a given thing is something that you don't have the authority to do. Maybe it's different when it comes to federal agencies, on that I'm ignorant. It seems more likely that the Supreme Court simply takes no issue with the new policy, rather than making a broad pronouncement about what future policy could be.

Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

#12

Post by hirundo »

RandomTisk wrote: post #9
slg wrote: post #4

>The new rule, which is expected to come into effect within 30 days, assumes that the forces of the market will guide the country to a future of cleaner energy by naturally phasing out coal over time. It imposes only modest requirements on coal plants. If you want to argue for small government, fine, I can't really argue against that, just own that as your position. However framing the policy this way is just dishone…

What major interest groups in the US oppose Nuclear energy? Curious what Nuclear is up against, since it seems like the logical choice to phase out coal in 25 years or so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_groups_in_the_Uni...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_U...

They include most environmental organizations, e.g. Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

#14

Post by slg »

ausbah wrote: post #10
slg wrote: post #4

>The new rule, which is expected to come into effect within 30 days, assumes that the forces of the market will guide the country to a future of cleaner energy by naturally phasing out coal over time. It imposes only modest requirements on coal plants. If you want to argue for small government, fine, I can't really argue against that, just own that as your position. However framing the policy this way is just dishone…

>We know for a fact that free markets do not provide an answer for externalities like pollution and climate change and the only reason to say this is to buy political cover for the real motivation. Would it be fair to say that free markets answer externalities, but only when they become so severe that the market producing the externatlities itself becomes degraded? Not really an exception to your statement, more of a…

If Big Oil/Coal pushes us to the point that climate change is on the verge of causing the collapse of civilization as we know it, I am sure they will react in some way. So your point is probably both ludicrous and fair. Although that just leads to a semantic debate because the externality would then be internalized since the people in the market would be directly impacted to the same degree that people outside the market would be. Either way, it is idiotic to wait around twiddling our thumps long enough to find out.

Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

#15

Post by rayiner »

ausbah wrote: post #10
slg wrote: post #4

>The new rule, which is expected to come into effect within 30 days, assumes that the forces of the market will guide the country to a future of cleaner energy by naturally phasing out coal over time. It imposes only modest requirements on coal plants. If you want to argue for small government, fine, I can't really argue against that, just own that as your position. However framing the policy this way is just dishone…

>We know for a fact that free markets do not provide an answer for externalities like pollution and climate change and the only reason to say this is to buy political cover for the real motivation. Would it be fair to say that free markets answer externalities, but only when they become so severe that the market producing the externatlities itself becomes degraded? Not really an exception to your statement, more of a…

No. The idea of the market is that local, free transactions will produce a globally optimal outcome. But even within idealized models, free transactions only lead to optimal outcomes where the cost of externalities is charged to the activities that produce them. Otherwise, the economy will produce more of the activity than the efficient level.

Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

#16

Post by AnimalMuppet »

slg wrote: post #4

>The new rule, which is expected to come into effect within 30 days, assumes that the forces of the market will guide the country to a future of cleaner energy by naturally phasing out coal over time. It imposes only modest requirements on coal plants. If you want to argue for small government, fine, I can't really argue against that, just own that as your position. However framing the policy this way is just dishone…

> We know for a fact that free markets do not provide an answer for externalities like pollution and climate change

Well, the free market answer is to fix a fair price for the externality, and then let the free market work. The issue, of course, is defining what the "fair" price is. What's the fair price of carbon? Depends on how bad the damage is going to be. How bad is that? Depending on who you listen to, what your time frame is, and how much other carbon is added on top of it, the answer might vary by two orders of magnitude.

Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

#17

Post by dexterdog »

hirundo wrote: post #12
RandomTisk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What major interest groups in the US oppose Nuclear energy? Curious what Nuclear is up against, since it seems like the logical choice to phase out coal in 25 years or so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_groups_in_the_Uni... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_U... They include most environmental organizations, e.g. Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

Then those are not environmental organization. They are political ones.

Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

#18

Post by slg »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #16
slg wrote: post #4

>The new rule, which is expected to come into effect within 30 days, assumes that the forces of the market will guide the country to a future of cleaner energy by naturally phasing out coal over time. It imposes only modest requirements on coal plants. If you want to argue for small government, fine, I can't really argue against that, just own that as your position. However framing the policy this way is just dishone…

> We know for a fact that free markets do not provide an answer for externalities like pollution and climate change Well, the free market answer is to fix a fair price for the externality, and then let the free market work. The issue, of course, is defining what the "fair" price is. What's the fair price of carbon? Depends on how bad the damage is going to be. How bad is that? Depending on who you listen to, what you…

>Well, the free market answer is to fix a fair price for the externality, and then let the free market work.

The way you normally do that is through government regulation which this policy is completely abdicating.

>The issue, of course, is defining what the "fair" price is. What's the fair price of carbon? Depends on how bad the damage is going to be. How bad is that? Depending on who you listen to, what your time frame is, and how much other carbon is added on top of it, the answer might vary by two orders of magnitude.

These are all things that are perfectly reasonable to debate. I have no complaints if you have logically reached a "fair price" that is drastically smaller than the "fair price" I have reached. That is not what this administration is arguing. This administration is arguing that "fair price" is already baked into the market. That is an indefensible position.

Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

#19

Post by panopticon »

dexterdog wrote: post #17
hirundo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_groups_in_the_Uni... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_U... They include most environmental organizations, e.g. Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

Then those are not environmental organization. They are political ones.

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. An effective environmental organization is going to engage in politics; that doesn't make it a non-environmental organization.

Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

#20

Post by AnimalMuppet »

slg wrote: post #18
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We know for a fact that free markets do not provide an answer for externalities like pollution and climate change Well, the free market answer is to fix a fair price for the externality, and then let the free market work. The issue, of course, is defining what the "fair" price is. What's the fair price of carbon? Depends on how bad the damage is going to be. How bad is that? Depending on who you listen to, what you…

>Well, the free market answer is to fix a fair price for the externality, and then let the free market work. The way you normally do that is through government regulation which this policy is completely abdicating. >The issue, of course, is defining what the "fair" price is. What's the fair price of carbon? Depends on how bad the damage is going to be. How bad is that? Depending on who you listen to, what your time f…

> The way you normally do that is through government regulation...

I wouldn't call it regulation. I would call it a tax or a fee. (Of course, there would have to be a regulation that controls the tax or the fee, but the point isn't regulation. The point is to collect the money.)

> ... which this policy is completely abdicating.

No argument.

Post reply on HN