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

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

#531

Post by briandear » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #397

nitsky wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That may even be "constitutionally" correct... but it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world. The Constitution was designed to be amended to adapt to a changing world. Let's amend it! However, it is the role of the Supreme Court to apply what the Constitution DOES say, not decide what it SHOULD say.

> let’s amend it! Lol good luck with that. Zero chance 3/4 of the states agree on literally anything. The culture wars are in full swing, owning the other side is more important than being effective.

Good. If we can’t agree, then we shouldn’t do it. We are a republic. Every state should have a say.

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

#532

Post by jimkleiber » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #402

jimkleiber wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that one of the main drivers of climate change is this precise behavior: trying to alter the environment to be favorable towards the thing that I own. I see it on a micro level of people trying to kill insects that get into their gardens or moles that ruin their lawns, and a more macro level of my state/country has coal underneath it and therefore we shall fight to continue to use coal or even my state/coun…

This is it. Values lead to attitudes when they are directed at an object. Beliefs and attitudes are emotionally biased and largely inform behavior. Unfortunately, beliefs don't have to be correct or even coherent with other beliefs to be strongly held. A person may value a coal mine for a variety of reasons that are very emotionally hinged: economic, familial, etc. To change behavior values and attitudes have to chan…

Change can suck. It can also be great. I think our tendency towards loss aversion makes us focus on how much it can suck. Even if my future might be better, it will be different, and I can want to not lose the thing to which I currently feel attached.

> That's exceptionally difficult when the competing values, like climate, are more abstract than the ones currently held. I worry that humans are not psychologically equipped to manage problems of this scale.

I think we may be equipped, as we've handled problems on much larger scales than I think our ancestors would have expected, and yet I hear you, wondering what (if anything) could change to make us more equipped.

I wonder if reframing our identity could help. Instead of me only being a coal miner or Michigander, I'm also more connected with my human identity. Maybe more backwoods experiences, watching and living TV shows like Alone or Naked and Afraid...I dunno. I wonder if we don't actually have to try to connect to the planet but just more deeply to our local wildlife and to ourselves.

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

#533

Post by nitsky » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

Arubis wrote: post #486

nostromo wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Conservatives love deadlock, it means the federal government does less, and power remains at the local level.

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

#534

Post by Arubis » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

jonstaab wrote: post #509

Arubis wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Deadlock is the point, less is more, worse is better.

I agree that that appears to be the tactic in use.

The Court could choose to act with the knowledge that Legislative won't do things, and so behave as the last bastion of relative non-partisanship across the Federal government by allowing the overall public opinion to influence what cases they choose to hear & their eventual outcomes. That would conflict with the letter description of their job, but arguably be in support of the spirit of the system as a whole.

They're not going to go that route, though, it appears.

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

#535

Post by post_break » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

rabuse wrote: post #235

I hope they go after the unconstitutional agency known as the "ATF" next.

That's exactly what this may do. The ATF in theory can't just up and decide what to ban without congress making a law. Turning law abiding citizens into felons overnight. Bumpstock ban? That's gone in theory. FRT trigger? Braces? ATF is going to quickly realize they can't just make shit up on the fly if it's not a law.

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

#536

Post by briandear » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #512

colinmhayes wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let’s amend it! Lol good luck with that. Zero chance 3/4 of the states agree on literally anything. The culture wars are in full swing, owning the other side is more important than being effective.

How is it culture wars when one side does not want to regulate pollution?

Defining CO2 as a pollutant is a problem for me.

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

#537

Post by josephcsible » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

im_down_w_otp wrote: post #416

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…

Alternatively, there's always the opportunity to reappropriate Andrew Jackson for the modern era and say, "John Roberts made his decision, now let him enforce it." Were the country so inclined.

No post body was provided.

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

#538

Post by zeroonetwothree » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

shrimpx wrote: post #521

fzeroracer wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the dissent spells that out clearly. An excerpt from the dissent: > The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shift- ing. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. §7411(a)(1). The “best system” full stop—…

These literalist justices are of the mind that if it wasn’t explicitly written, then it’s not allowed. Generalist/broad swath language is to be ignored. Only specific instruction is to be interpreted.

Only when it’s convenient for their position. For the 2nd amendment they take a very broad reading.

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

#539

Post by namdnay » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

kbuchanan wrote: post #502

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…

This is a great example of how on an individual level commentators want to bend democratic processes to achieve their own goals, but, without fail, they get caught in a tangle of contradictions. What is the Supreme Court's mandate? To stop climate change? To feel out the majority's opinion and make a legal path for it? This is why democracy is so hard: it consistently yields outcomes that are disappointing to a large…

> What is the Supreme Court's mandate? To stop climate change?

Stopping climate change should be everyone’s mandate. When your house is on fire and a neighbor has a hose pipe, so you get into an argument with them because they’re not a fireman?

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

#540

Post by res0nat0r » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

Arubis wrote: post #486

nostromo wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The entire point was to kick this to Congress, which they know can't pass anything, thus achieving their entire goal of allowing companies to pollute and do whatever they want to make an additional buck.