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

Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Post by nitsky »

jvanderbot wrote: post #457
rlewkov wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An attorney friend of mine summarized it by saying that the Supreme Court said it's OK for the EPA to dictate particular emission levels for power plants but not OK to require a plant to change it's method of power generation.

So CO2=0 would be legit? That seems against the spirit / motivation of the court at present moment. My third-hand impression was that they ruled that regulating CO2 at all was outside their responsibilities.

The deal is that Congress can delegate administrative authority to agencies like the EPA, but answers to "major questions" must be backed up by legislation. Where is the line? Wherever the Supreme Court decides it is.

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

#482

Post by thsijustin »

thepasswordis wrote: post #330
nooyurrsdey wrote: post #282

Emphasis mine: > The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies. > > They were challenging whether the agency has the power to regulate planet-warming emissions for state-wide power sectors or just individual power plants. > > These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be regulated and they would be f…

Then tell the EPA to start lobbying the NRC to allow new nuclear plants and start allowing innovation in the space. The EPA is not a legislative body. If you want to make it illegal to run a coal plant because you feel like it’s your duty to force some pain on the citizenry for what you perceive as a higher calling: pass a law.

No post body was provided.

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

#483

Post by cmurf »

nostromo wrote: post #357
cmurf wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dissent indicates the power is already explicitly granted in the EPA statute plain as day. It really isn't clear to me what language would satisfy the majority.

“The EPA may regulate carbon emissions” would do the trick.

Why do you propose every single atom needs to be explicitly listed? 42 USC 7411 does grant EPA the power to determine what emissions need regulating, and how to best regulate them.

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

#484

Post by jl6 »

scotty79 wrote: post #243
ericmay wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you stay you are giving them your work and taxes, potentially your children. It's better to gtfo. Some people are deriving plasure from fighting the fights even at high personal cost. But most people don't. Your top responsibility is to yourself, to make the best of the short time you have. Fighting loosing fights doesn't seem to be that for most people.

> Your top responsibility is to yourself, to make the best of the short time you have.

Ironically this is the mindset behind keeping the coal plants online.

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

#485

Post by kevin_b_er »

DantesKite wrote: post #50

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.

But that's just what it is now, isn't it? A political entity driven by political goals. With an outsized power to reinterpret laws and rules to suit a certain group's political goals.

It may have started with a certain role, but it is now a political entity. I treat it as such.

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

#486

Post by Arubis »

nostromo wrote: post #450
asdajksah2123 wrote: post #326

It's not clear to me if the court has ruled broadly regarding delegation here (we still need experts to read through the entire ruling), but they've clearly indicated that they believe that delegation is not okay with them. Which basically means that this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon, making its functioning absolutely impossible. That may even be "constitutionally" correct (altho…

> this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon This is an absurd take. All Congress needs to do is clarify that they’d like the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. That’s it. The laws regarding pollution control, many of which date back to the 1950s and 1960s, we’re not written with global warming in mind. So the court is saying the EPA needs to get permission from elected officials to regula…

> All Congress needs to do…

And therein lies the problem. We know Congress is too deadlocked to be effective. Does the Court pushing back on them have a shot at getting the legislative branch to do their jobs?

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

#487

Post by bombcar »

bumby wrote: post #446
bombcar wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have 50+ years of Congress delegating authority and blame to various other branches and groups without actually legislating it, which gives politicians perfect cover and someone else to blame. If Congress wants to do something, they can pass the law to do so. Ever since the "it's not a tax healthcare penalty" was upheld by the Court as "yes it is you idiots" it's been painfully clear that Congress wants no part in…

> We have 50+ years of Congress delegating authority and blame to various other branches This became very apparent to me after pushed Congress to pass an Authorization of Military Force around ~2014. They balked, effectively continuing the trend of delegating their war-making abilities to the executive branch.

Presidents are disposable; congress critters are for life. They'd much rather have a figurehead take the credit and blame, since no matter what they're gone in a max of 8 years.

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

#488

Post by hotpotamus »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #460
hotpotamus wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they're ahead of you on that one. Already zapped the Voting Rights Act and ruled that gerrymandering is legal. They're pretty competent at setting up the doom loop for Democracy - that and cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Adapt and overcome. I'm against panic and FUD.

You know, it occurs to me that pessimism is pretty inherently toxic, but not always wrong, but optimism can have the same quality.

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

#489

Post by zeroonetwothree »

iandanforth wrote: post #224
bastardoperator wrote: post #38

I don't ever want to hear the term "activist judges" or "legislating from the bench" from a conservative ever again. And, Barrett couldn't even cite the first amendment...

You appear to be under the impression that conservatives care about consistency or are vulnerable to accusations of inconsistency.

I would replace “conservatives” with “people” in that sentence

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

#490

Post by usrn »

asdajksah2123 wrote: post #326

It's not clear to me if the court has ruled broadly regarding delegation here (we still need experts to read through the entire ruling), but they've clearly indicated that they believe that delegation is not okay with them. Which basically means that this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon, making its functioning absolutely impossible. That may even be "constitutionally" correct (altho…

>If you thought China taking over Africa because the US govt was distracted by the Middle East (and isolationism) was bad

Wait I thought people (especially the left) morally condemned the rush for Africa as well as modern day "neo colonialism."

EDIT: Alright, so I'm getting downvoted. What am I missing?

Post reply on HN