Slashdot Mirror
Two Powerful Blows Against Air Pollution Controls
The NYTimes reports from Washington on two separate actions on Friday that, between them, have halted Bush administration clean-air initiatives in their tracks. The current administration is no favorite of environmental groups, but these groups sided with the administration in a court case brought by the utility companies. On Friday an appeals court threw out the EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule, established in 2005. The court ruled that the EPA had exceeded its authority when it established that rule, which set new requirements for major pollutants. According to the article, even the utilities were appalled to see the rule completely gutted; their objections had been narrower. Here is a podcast with the reporter (MP3) giving some background on the ruling. The second major blow to clean-air efforts came later in the day on Friday. Quoting: "...the EPA chief rejected any obligation to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide under existing law, saying that to do so would involve an 'unprecedented expansion' of the agency's authority that would have 'a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy,' touching 'every household in the land.'... In effect, Mr. Johnson was simultaneously publishing the policy analysis of his scientific and legal experts and repudiating its conclusions."
But on a more serious note.. I feel this administration has ruined out economy and now its after our environment.
Yes... it was simply inhuman, the way the B*sh administration ruthlessly and systematically forced so many innocent people to buy Hummers and drive them around all day long.
I don't know. While I am in favor of environmental regulations, the fact that the courts threw out the entire mess might be a blessing in disguise. It will be back to the drawing board and the Bush administration will not have enough time to put new ones into effect. The regulation that the courts threw out probably was filled with loopholes that would let polluters off the hook. Maybe a new (and hopefully environmentally friendly) administration will do it correctly.
Yeah, that's the simpleton way to see things and it's all too popular around here. While we're at it, low emissions vehicles still produce emissions. We should just let people go on with whatever they want until a zero emission vehicle is created. After all, what's the point in doing what you can when you can if you can't do it all at once?
Talk about some serious asshattery.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
The EPA is basically meaningless. The powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, and the people. 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps the most important Amendment in that it limits the reach of the Federals.
Unfortunately (for the better part of a century), the Congress has behaved as if there were no restrictions whatsoever on their authority. As if "anything we can dream up, we can do." This is one of those rare times that a federal court seems to understand the Fed (and it's agencies') power is limited.
And no, "regulation of interstate commerce" clause, so often abused, does not grant this authority; It does not give free reign to the Feds to do anything they wish. Practically speaking, the Framers of the Constitution would not construct a careful balance of power, then undo it all with one clause.
Yes... it was simply inhuman, the way the B*sh administration ruthlessly and systematically forced so many innocent people to buy Hummers and drive them around all day long.
Good post. Does everyone forget that the 90's launched the SUV into popularity?
Judging by the utilities response, there were probably some loopholes in this act they already have plans in motion for. The Bush administration is known for making deals with energy. That's why they were shocked to have the whole thing thrown out. Most likely, the holes came down from the top, and the EPA threw in some licensing requirements at the last minute. They lucked out and got the whole thing thrown out.
There was a lot of selling of coal and natural gas companies on the East Coast in the last few years in anticipation of this act so it probably threw a wrench into the spokes of the alternate plans (nuclear). Most likely Dick Cheney and the nuclear lobby collaborated on this one. You're probably saying, "Dick Cheney?!" Well, yes. Wyoming is home to the largest deposits of uranium around. He's worked at power and energy companies for all his life. The act alone would I'm sure fuel some speculation in the Uranium markets, of which he and his family are major players.
The 15 year uranium chart clearly shows this amazing run up culminating in the sell off (in late 2007). I don't think we will be hearing from any of these guys for another 10 years, because they have just pulled the biggest scam in the history of America, they have ALL the money now (and just to make sure they printed a lot of extra and gave it to themselves). Oh, and they all moved to Dubai (Halliburton is now headquartered in Dubai, and deals equally with Euros and trades on the Dubai exchange).
Cool! Amazing Toys.
>The same fucktards that said - by the year 2000, folks! - we'd be eating each other to survive and predicted a global ice age during the 70s
>are the same fucktards behind global warming.
Cite please?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
So you're the loser who spoils if for the rest of us. Remember folks, whenever you want to know why there has to be a law, just think of this guy.
Here's what we know (for sure) about global warming:
Increases in atmospheric CO2 cause warming.
Man has been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Earth has been warming.
However, we cannot link any of these together in a cause and effect relationship, because the Earth has been warming long before man started to emit CO2. The last ice age (10K years ago) is still melting, and the last 1.5K year warming trend is still on the upswing. Water vapor has a more significant effect on warming, and we don't even know if more clouds increase or decrease warming. It would be a HUGE negation of science for the EPA to say that CO2 is a pollutant.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Sure, a good kick, in the standard broken-window-fallacy sense.
Not that the pollution isn't metaphorically breaking a few windows itself, but the nation's economy has better things to be doing than up and moving cities for the sake of the construction workers. It's wasteful.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
uh.. duh?
If the state agencies were less stringent than the feds, they'd have a hard time justifying their budgets, wouldnt they?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I'm not actively disagreeing with you, but your reading of the 10th Amendment is expressly contradictory of the way courts have read it. For most of the Modern Jurisprudential (post-Lochner) Era, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 10th Amendment has been the following:
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.
United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).
Thus in effect the 10th Amendment is a nullity in terms of its scope and power. There have been attempts to revive the 10th Amendment as a restriction on the Commerce Power--some as recently at the 1970s--but the Court has been quite divided over whether it wants to do this. There's some interesting reading on the subject here.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
The point is, we should try to have as little impact on our environment as possible, since we've shown ourselves to be clueless as to the actual effects of what we've already done.
This clause is commonly referred to as the Tax and Spend Clause and has been commonly read to give Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, not to regulate for the general welfare. Thus, if Congress wanted to tax pollution for the general welfare, it could. This specific clause does not give Congress the power to regulate pollution for the general welfare. Congress has no general police power.
If you want to know more about the history and interpretation of the clause, there is some excellent reading here.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
So we should continue to fuck over the environment (a.k.a. the future of the human race) in order to prop up NASDAQ? We need to find ways to accomplish economic necessities without killing the planet in the meantime. Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc. are a great place to start, despite opposition to some elements thereof (OMG, reprocessing nuclear fuel looks like weapons production!!!).
Personally, I think that the EPA was right to claim that they can't regulate carbon emissions. The reasoning they stated was absolutely and 100% valid. Regulation of carbon emissions (and other heat trapping gases) is a big deal. You are talking about going from open seasons to something much more restrictive. The vast majority of companies don't even know how much they are dumping out because it is currently unregulated. The EPA regulating carbon emissions would be a very very big deal. It would have some very dramatic effects upon the price and have an effect upon the economy.
I am not against regulating such emissions, but it isn't up to a government bureaucrat to make such a significant decision. This truly is the role of elected officials. Congress needs to get up off their collective asses and decide what the law of the land should be in terms of green house gas emissions. Congress needs to decide what the balance between the economy and the environment is, and they need to be held responsible if they screw it up. The head of the EPA is absolutely correct in throwing up his hands and saying that this is for congress to sort out, not him.
Do you know that there's something perfectly natural that eats up CO2? They are called p-l-a-n-t-s.
Yep. And where does most of this magic happen ? In Earth's oceans. Which we're about to make a lot less hospitable for life through acidification (ironically, mostly through CO2) and overfertilization.
It almost seems as if this earth were designed in such a way that we couldn't mess it up.
We can't mess it up for life in general, but we sure as heck can mess it up for us. And, believe it or not, there are some people who might want to see mankind live and prosper for another couple of ten thousand years, at least.
Global warming is just a part of the problem with using fossilized carbon fuels. One of the biggest problems is that it is a finite source of energy. They will run out in a not so distant future.
CO2 gases arent the only problem either. Cancerogenes and heavy metals arent fun in the long run for our children and the animals. However you look at it its about time we seriously look at other energy sources.
HTTP/1.1 400
You're being moderated informative, apparently due to the fact that no-one has clicked on your first link.Nowhere in that page does National Geographic predict global cooling. The headline on the diagram is 'Towards an uncertain future'. The box out next to it starts:
The graph shows two possible warmer trends one marked 'warmer?' the other marked 'cooler?'. The only bias towards cooler on the page is the note that 'we are living in one of the warmer periods of the last million years.'
Good job at completely misrepresenting the page that you link to.
"the whole CO2 warms the planet nonsense started from a paper written by a britsh climatologist (the name escapes me right now)"
Oh, well that just settles it, doesn't it?
Good on you for debunking the greenhouse effect. Your well researched post can now serve as the definitive argument against climate change as proffered by those damn hippie environmentalists. Give yourself a big gold star.
You know, you could argue against climate change, global warming, etc. But arguing against the Greenhouse effect?
blah blah blah
But on a more serious note.. I feel this administration has ruined out economy and now its after our environment.
This couldnt be more f'd up
So, let me get this straight. A BUSH ADMINISTRATION clean air initiative... meaning a BUSH plan that was GOOD for the environment BY DESIGN gets shot down by the courts and YOU BLAME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?
You're right! That couldn't be from f'd up!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Yeah and it's just a coincidence that the 11 warmest years on record have been in the last 13 years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
Sigh head in the sand deniers may quite literally cause millions of people to die. :(
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Well, I was 20 at the time. I vividly remember the scare stories in all the newspapers.
I'm sure you do. All that means is the media did a great job blowing up a minority opinion into a global disaster scenario.
In short, there's a huge difference between a false scare perpetuated by the media and a real concern that's held by the majority of scientists. The former characterizes global cooling, the latter is true of global warming.
Global warming deniers generally are neither good at science nor at statistics.
99.99% of the GW believers are earth worshiping religious fruitcakes that only spit off a few talking points to pretend they are hip. Seriously, do you think that aging folk tart Sheryl Crow actually can even write a computer program?
This is my sig.
Damn those bushies, for classifying a hummer as a light truck!
Not the classification of it as a light truck, but allowing business write-offs for passenger vehicles and treating light truck passenger vehicles differently. That is, it costs more for a business to use a similarly priced sedan with much better mileage than get the Hummer for the same job. Here, they request that all executives getting company cars pick trucks. The company even pays gas and it's cheaper for them to put someone in an Expedition than a Volvo of the same price (even though the Volvo gets better mileage).
No one thinks that Hummers aren't light trucks. No one thinks that work trucks shouldn't be treated differently for business taxes than superfulous executive cars. However, when executives pick trucks in order to save money and drive them in a manner where a Honda Civic would have sufficed and the government is giving them financial incentives to pick the truck over the car, that's where there is a problem. Why do you think the government should be subsidizing executive Hummers for personal use and not BMWs?
Learn to love Alaska