EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
#2[deleted]
Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
#3Seems 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 in the future. They can only answer specific questions. Just because the last 1A case was on a relatively uncontroversial form of speech or petition, doesn't mean that 1A is restricted in scope, it just means that it's not particularly harshly tested by the present case.
The argument they're making is frankly ridiculous. The Supreme Court not finding a moderate policy to be unconstitutional does not preclude you from trying more aggressive policy in the future in any way.
Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
#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 dishonest. 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.
>While it instructs states to reduce emissions, the new measure sets no targets. Instead, it gives states broad latitude to decide how much carbon reduction they consider reasonable and suggests ways to improve efficiency at individual power plants.
That is always a great way to get things done, just leave everything up to what others think is "reasonable".
Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
#5This isn't going to get around the simple economics of coal being more expensive. Natural gas is what is killing coal, but the cost of wind and solar continues to decrease.
The Tennessee Valley Authority is closing 2 coal plants:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-tva/tva-votes-to...
And is looking to go solar:
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/st...
Also an interesting read:
https://energyinnovation.org/publication/the-coal-cost-cross...
""" Constructing new wind and solar projects would be less expensive than continuing to run 74 percent of existing U.S. coal plants, according to a new study. That number jumps to 86 percent of coal plants by 2025. """
Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
#6A constitution that disallows meaningful federal regulation of co2 emissions is nothing more than a pathetic suicide pact.
Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
#7[deleted]
Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
#8Seems 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.
Maybe that's causing the confusion within the rest of your post, because it isn't a question of constitutionality.
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.
Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
#9>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.
Re: EPA Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules
#10>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 ludicrous technicality.