Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

bbc.com

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#11

These guys are on a roll. Yesterday was giving states legal rights over indigenous nations. Today this. I was already planning to expat soon, but this all makes me want to try to hurry that timeline. Sorry to those of you that are stuck in this hellscape.

You’re looking to become an immigrant somewhere?

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#12
post #2

The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me. I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them. In a previou…

> I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them.

This has already been happening for a decade now. But it has been limited to poorer regions, such as north Africa, south-central Americas, and war-torn regions of the Middle East.

Most of this instability was precipitated by food prices, which wealthier nations found themselves immune to. But they are no longer immune, food prices are spiking by double digit annual percentages all over the world. Fuel prices too. The G7 are already in talks about how acquiesce to Russia for their natural gas.

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#14
The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me.

I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them.

In a previous post I wrote that conservatives everywhere use moral issues to make people enraged in order to get vote, and in exchange to that they use their power to help the rich get richer. This is exactly what I was talking about. Those Conservative judges were appointed by a President elected by people that rallied behind him hoping to see Roe overturned, and in exchange for that they also gave them a free pass to alter the US political system in a way that is favourable to the Republican party, i.e. the party of big industry and capital.

This is also another small hint that "countries" are a stupid concept - we must stop to pretend that a single country is an island, everything has consequences that irradiate and reflect on the rest of the world, and it's stupid to think everyone can be a ruler of its own tiny spot of our planet.

Countries are like homes, but they aren't cottages in the middle of nowhere, they are flats - if you set your own house on fire, everyone will suffer, everyone will lose something, if not everything.

"$countryname first!" and Nationalism in all its forms is basically just a more general form of Fascism.

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#15

TL;DR? My best attempt: The federal law did not give authority to EPA to control the type of energy (fuel) used. It only had authority to set emission guidelines.

That’s not false, but it really misses some important detail:

  namely, that generation shifting cannot be a “system of emission re- duction” under Section 111. 985 F. 3d 914, 995.
In other words, telling a coal plant operator to reduce their plants emissions by switching some energy production to other sources is beyond the EPA’s legal authority.

However, given that you evidently prefer a single (technocratic?) world government I suppose you might welcome the further erosion of the US republic? In that case damn-the-consequences-do-what-I-want is an understandable position to take, even if it’s inimical to the long term health of the republic.

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#16

I don't know how I should react to this news. I can imagine every argument: "EPA regulations were inconsequential in GHG emission reductions in the US during the last 20 years" "This decision could doom humanity" "An excess of environmental regulations is accelerating climate change, scientists find" "Experts say the private sector will continue to seek emissions efficiencies on its own, regardless of environmental r…

"If you want to regulate greenhouse gasses, we have a legislature that can regulate greenhouse gasses"

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#18

Major questions doctrine. They ruled that the current law does not empower EPA to require producers to shift generation to different methods (e.g. natural gas, renewables), and that if Congress had meant for the law to do that, they would have written it explicitly. Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Ah yes, but that would require Congress to actually do something, which hasn't happened in the last 18 months so we shouldn't expect it to start.

Congress could have mooted this case with ordinary statutory procedures at any point, but did not.

Post reply on HN