Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases
UnknowingFool writes In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA on some limits to greenhouse gases but also upheld other limits. In a 5-4 partial decision, the high court ruled that EPA overstepped their authority in requiring permits only for greenhouse gases for new and modified facilities using the Clean Air act. Such regulatory action can only be granted by Congress. But in the same case on a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the EPA can enforce greenhouse gas limits on facilities that already require permits for other air pollutants. This leaves intact most of the new regulations proposed by the Obama administration earlier this month as many coal plants produce other air pollutants that can be regulated by the EPA.
Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason. It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate that will eventually result in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of death and billions of dollars of property damage, or anything like that ...
Either way it is great that SCOTUS is allowing the EPA to ignore Congress. Congress is ruled by Republican fucktards so working around them is what is best for this country. As usual, Obama with these orders has ignored the will of the people which is good because the people are fucking idiots.
Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason.
Oh, they have lots of reasons. Envy, group-based politics, delusions of a Bold New World Order, valuing equality of outcomes over equality under the law, romantic notions of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, etc., etc. Of course most would never admit their goal is to make everyone equally poor, it's just the inevitable result of the centralization of power heavy-handed, cradle-to-grave regulatory scheme that their policies are driving toward.
It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate
(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature)
that will eventually result in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of death and billions of dollars of property damage, or anything like that ...
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature)
Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself :-)
This is just laughable.
First it was 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.
Then they changed that to 'climate change', which is obviously NOT 'catastrophic man-made global warming', but they IMPLY that it is, EVERY time they use that laughable phrase 'climate change'. The 'climate' is ALWAYS 'changing'.
Now it's 'greenhouse gases', IMPLYING CO2, but not saying it. This is just SO sickeningly obvious, how can anybody fall for this nonsense?
"The scandal of fiddling global warming data":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
www.climatedepot.com