Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by civilized » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 2:59 PM UTC

This is a silly decision. I don't respect the reasoning at all.

If Republicans want to abolish the EPA, all they have to do is pass a law. They could do it with a simple majority in each House if they abolish the filibuster (which itself requires only a simple majority).

There is no meaningful loss of democratic control here. Congress can do whatever it wants, with or without the EPA.

This is just the highest court in the land acting as toadies for the fossil fuel industry, legislating from the bench on a flimsy right wing legal theory.

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

#42

Post by Ekaros » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 2:59 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #35

Ekaros wrote: post #10

Seems like they are really working towards democracy. Making them actually make the laws.

They are limiting the ability of the government to make and enforce laws. The EPA is created with Congressional authority and is empowered to act on their behalf. Castrating the federal government will have negative repercussions. If the federal government doesn't have the power to control the states, then why bother having one?

They do, they just need to make laws that EPA can enforce. Not let EPA to act on its own. Isn't everyone always talking about unelected burecrauts going against the will of the people?

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

#43

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 2:59 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #27

itslennysfault wrote: post #7

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.

I'd like to caution other people who are feeling despondent and thinking of leaving that this is exactly what they want. They want you to give them your homes, your relationships, your friends, your resources, your job and everything you've cared about. So instead of being cynical and celebrating people who are abandoning ship, which I totally understand, we should instead spend time uniting people in opposition. Sta…

[deleted]

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

#44

Post by dionian » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:00 PM UTC

qalmakka wrote: post #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 previou…

cool well if you have the votes then pass a law, and btw, BRICS will take over economically and keep pumping gases into the atmosphere the whole time

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

#45

Post by wing-_-nuts » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:00 PM UTC

Great, so now we're reliant on congress to get something done. The same congress that's sat on its hands for the past 30 years and has been shown to be completely incapable of addressing the issue.

This is a massive blow to the US being able to reach emissions targets. Every day we're one step closer to the 'business as usual' path that leaves the world 3-4c hotter. That's a catastrophic scenario.

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

#46

Post by Miner49er » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:00 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #24

What’s interesting about this ruling (if you listened to the oral arguments and read the ruling) is that it appears to undercut the ability for any executive agency to make a rule, under them claim that congress cannot delegate its powers. So the FAA can’t determine and then require that aircraft have transponders. Congress has to do this. If they continue down this path it will be chaos.

I don't think this is correct. Congress can definitely delegate its power, they are just saying that Congress didn't delegate the power the EPA is trying to use in this case.

From the final paragraph of the opinion:

"But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."

So it seems that Congress can still give the EPA a more clear delegation that they have this power.

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

#47

Post by tzs » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:00 PM UTC

From the articles I've seen so far it seems they can still regulate individual power plants.

Does this mean that while they cannot stop new high emissions plants from being built, once a plant actually starts producing they could regulate it?

That might actually work out better, because building a plant and then having it come under regulation would probably be more costly to the plant owners than if they had went for a cleaner plant from the beginning.

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

#48

Post by jeffbee » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

jschveibinz wrote: post #3

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 the gist of it but imagine the logical consequences. What the court is saying is that the EPA has no authority to stop the burning of anything, it only has the authority to apply the best-known commercially viable technology to make the emissions of that burning as clean as can be. So, for example, if you wanted to incinerate lead ingots - and let's just ignore the reasons you'd want to do this for debate purposes - the EPA cannot stop you, because there is no commercially viable (i.e. profitable) technology that would make the emissions any cleaner.

Now you may think this is a crazy example but there's an Alcoa facility in Texas that originally burned lignite but long since ran out of the good stuff and has just been burning dirt for decades. It is one of the largest point sources of air pollution in the world, and what the court is saying here is the EPA has not been empowered by Congress to stop that. If Alcoa wants to burn dirt, then fine.

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

#49

Post by willis936 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

xpe wrote: post #34

brodouevencode wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as much a blow to chevron deference than anything. This is a good thing.

Please explain.

I'll attempt to explain on their behalf: technocracy bad, regulatory capture good.

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

#50

Post by DantesKite » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

I feel like a lot of people here would do well to try and understand the role of the Supreme Court, instead of treating it like a second version of Congress.