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."
I think I will make the best of this, take my HUMMER out for a ride.
If I get it right, the EPA is allowed to be given authority to do things as long as they have no real effect? Of course the EPA is going to have a profound effect on every sector of the economy. If you curtail CO2 emissions you are basically affecting every step of production delivery and consumption of most goods. That is, after all, the gravity of the situation.
WTF is the EPA for anyway?
OTOH this is looking like an episode of Yes Minister, with the approach of overdoing a popular idea to make sure it sinks.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
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.
Here's the announcement:
(Washington, D.C. - July 11, 2008) Today EPA released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting public input on the effects of climate change and the potential ramifications of the Clean Air Act in relation to greenhouse gas emissions.
And here is the transcript of Johnson's conference call on the release.
Finally, here is the (588 page PDF) document itself.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
Not so fast. Mexico has no environmental controls of any consequence, and the effluent from their power production and manufacturing plants does affect us. Try living downwind from a Mexican power plant.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Partially true. Halliburton's primary headquarters is located Huston, they recently opened a secondary headquarters in Dubai. This makes sense since they have several business interest there. They also have offices in Anchorage, Denver, and a number of other cities scattered through the USA.
The Gospel according to lolcat
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...
The parent is so far off base it's not even funny. Just take a look at the website the photo of the National Geographic Magazine was located at. (here's the page for the November, 1976 edition). Here's a summary of the website by the way:
Perfect is the enemy of done.
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.