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.
What the Supreme Court actually did was to disallow direct regulation of CO2 unless the EPA actually wants to attempt to regulate ALL producers of >250 tons annually, which is impractical.
What the EPA intended to do was to regulate producers of >100,000 tons annually, with the possibility of reducing that threshold over time as we get handle on the issue.
What the Supreme Court did leave intact is the ability to regulate CO2 production by producers who are already regulated for other reasons 'anyway'.
That does happen to match up fairly well with what the EPA intended to do originally, but does not allow the flexibility to regulate CO2 producers who do not produce large amounts of other pollution.
And NOT enforcing, say, banking or clean air regulations, a la Bush is known as "malfeasance".
This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.
But don't let me stop you from making things up, just because your ideology demands that the science be wrong, thus imagining acting on the science is wrong, thus twisting your mind to invent new and interesting ways of stating the opposite of reality.
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 ...
The function of the executive agency is precisely to create and uphold rules. Most people think congressional laws detail out rules; this is mostly wrong. One clear example showing the difference between agency rules and laws is the American Disabilities Act of 1990. It's a very short law, but the executive agencies that enforce the laws have well over 100,000 pages of rules, none of which are defined verbatim in the law.
Congress's job is not to micromanage, it is to appropriate funds, enact legislation and oversee the executive during the life of the legislation.
Well then Congress shouldn't give them that power? That was the court's finding, that Congress had already authorized the EPA to regulate any gases produced at a plant that also produces named pollutants. So CO2 gets lumped in with the rest under their blanket authority over existing polluters. Which is why they struck down the ability to expand their authority to non-polluting entities. It was outside their existing jurisdiction.
Congress does that a lot, authorizes blanket authority, and then bitches when it gets exercised. It's like they don't read the bills they pass or something...
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
And, of course, that's got NOTHING to do with the fact that it's big businesses who are the ones fouling the global commons for their own selfish profit. Again.
And NOT enforcing, say, banking or clean air regulations.
Existing regulations (as approved by Congress) is one thing. Adding new categories to those regulations and demanding they be enforced minus legislative oversight is another.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.
Yes and no.
In concept, yes. In practice, it required someone with a whole lot of money and legal expertise to perform that check. The Judicial system as a check should be a near-last resort, not the first thing you do to chuck a bad and un-legislated law.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Indeed you are very correct, this government is become a dictatorship, abetted by a feckless Congress. It matters not whether you're lib/con or dem/repub, this is dangerous when the next changeover of power occurs, and it will occur. What the President has loosed now will be used against his party in the future.
Too bad my mod points are all gone now, you deserve +3.
Have a Day!
Can you cite the direct Congressional actions that outlawed diazinon or PCBs or even DDT? Yeah, I thought not. Those were all executive actions.
Uh, Big Business is doing a fantastic job of destroying the middle-class without the EPA even being involved.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
CO2 is what animals exhale and plants breathe. If CO2 is a pollutant, then so is rainwater. And soon no law has meaning, once they are all subject to such fun-house-mirror distortion. War is peace, freedom is slavery, comrade!
If you have rules that are too detailed for Congress, then those are rules which should not exist at the federal level.
A lot of legislation (at all levels) is simple wording, with an understanding that an agency more equipped to work out the minutiae will do so.
Those administrative agencies (like, say, the EPA) figure out that minutiae, and those details (functionally speaking) become law. Chevron v EPA is a cornerstone of administrative law. [Congress made broad stroke laws, EPA enforced it as they interpreted it, Chevron sued, and SCOTUS made clear that regulatory agency administration is - pretty much - law.]
I'm waiting for them to bad dihydrogen monoxide from all foods.
Joking aside, you made my point, and then pointed out that this is not a new thing.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Actually, it is Congress' obligation to be extremely specific in the laws they write. The nondelegation doctrine is an important concept in American jurisprudence.
J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States helped establish the rules under which power can be delegated, essentially stating that Congress has to establish an "intelligible standard" for the executive or legislative branch.
Congress can't simply tell the executive branch, "Hey, you guys control pollution so we can have a clear sky." Congress has to establish an intelligible standard upon which an administrative agency can build regulations AND Congress has to grant the power to the agency to establish those rules. Typical statutes might read, "...xxx agency is empowered to institute regulations in support of this statute."
The function of the executive agency was not to create rules but, rather, to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States. The fact that Congress has found numerous ways in order to delegate its power to the executive agency doesn't change the fundamental design of the system. This delegation of power is what's lead everyone to believe the executive branch holds more power than it really does.
The most unfortunate thing about Congress' abdication of power to the executive branch using so many specific delegations is that we've created a situation in aggregate where the executive has an almost blanket delegation of Congressional power; a delegation that would be unconstitutional if granted via a single Congressional action.
It's just a coincidence that every law is anti-big business. Imagine all the business opportunities, if big business could just hire some gun men and force people out of their houses! Those pesky property laws are so totally anti-big business. It's so anti free market that the people with more and better guns shouldn't be able to expand their market share.
Dihydrogen monoxide SHOULD be outlawed. That shit will kill you. You know fish fuck in that stuff.
I would bury the hatchet with the environmentalist wackos if they would en masse press for nuclear power.
But we both know it's not going to happen.
Indeed you are very correct, this government is become a dictatorship, abetted by a feckless Congress. It matters not whether you're lib/con or dem/repub, this is dangerous when the next changeover of power occurs, and it will occur. What the President has loosed now will be used against his party in the future.
Too bad my mod points are all gone now, you deserve +3.
So what is the appropriate role for Obama in this? It seems odd that he would be expected to act as a passive administrator when he was elected with a policy based mandate to a much greater degree than congress.
I stole this Sig
They have Congressional authority. That is the whole "delegation of powers" thing where Congress is too lazy to legislate so they just delegate the power to an unaccountable, unelected agency that lives under the executive branch, which can regulate "as it sees fit."
So sit back and enjoy We shall emerge victorious. We have the blueprint, and the means. It's a proven strategy.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Global warming is real. About 5 billion years from next Thursday, the sun is going to become a red giant, expand beyond earth's orbit, and the temperature on earth will be in the neighborhood of 3,000 degrees,
There is nothing inherently anti-big business in the recommended solutions, just big business (especially the fossil fuel industry) as it is currently practiced. There are plenty of big businesses that are more or less environmentally responsible and they don't get that much attention for it.
Even one of the founder members of Greenpeace has complained, and continues to complain, that the current Green anti-nuclear agenda is idiotic and counter productive. Go figure.
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms
That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.
What "un-legislated law" are you referring to?
None of what you are saying changed the fact that congress has the right to delegate. The case you mentioned is built on the premise that congress has the implied authority to delegate so long as intelligible standards or principles are enacted. A world in in which congress cannot effectively delegate for a country as large as as the US is a country that is likely to fail.
Why is Tesla selling as many cars as it can make, and out-doing the existing big business carmakers at Tesla's type of car?
An additionally critiscism I have of your point is that the legal standards for "very specific" is next to meaningless. Evolving standards and education levels of the citizenry make it impossible to be explicit. FDA and Texas Constitution are perfect examples. FDA regulates "drugs." Under you standard some may argue that "drugs" as defined under statute is too broad and not specific enough. Should congress enact legislation with a list of approved drugs and treatments that the FDA should regulate? I think not.
The Texas constitution is another example of how lucky America is that it's constitution provides implicit authority versus Texas's constitution which provides only explicit authority which needs to be amended all the time just to pass some laws. (I'm a Texan). While some may argue that explicit authority is preferable, there realistically too many problems and issues of public importance that need to be addressed only to have one's government handicap itself in carrying out public functions.
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms
That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.
...according to EPA reports without any substantiating data. In fact, they didn't even follow basic Federal guidelines, and that's according to the agency's own Office of Inspector General:
"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 :-)
Apparently because that's all you've got. Pointing to a Wikipedia article created and religiously (yes) guarded by climate change alarmist politicos really doesn't make much of an argument, does it?
That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over. And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over.
Great, so you got a link to that survey of climate scientists where they all say it's a scam?
And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.
Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented, the only way to even try to have a dialogue is to reference an impartial source like a survey of a large numbers of scientists. Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something, they *could* all be wrong ... but they probably aren't.
Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented
That's rich, from an evangelist like you. There are so many facts getting in the way of evangelizing the AGW alarmism that the alarmists have just taken to saying "Well what difference does it make? We should make all these policy changes even if it's wrong!" Really. Here are a few direct quotes for you.
Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something
Well, they do believe something. Just not catastrophic climate change, or current driver of the most recent changes. Because that was not the question, even though it's claimed that it was.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
If a plant managed to find a process to capture all chemicals and have 0 pollutants other than CO2, this would give them a way to also be free of CO2 regulations.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Interesting. So are you pro or against the AGW hypothesis? Because when I argue that AGW hypothesis is a thinly-disguised neo-Communist agenda, it seems to have a whiff of paranoia. Would you care to affirm that you a primary example of such a confluence?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
In 1970 there would have been a 100% consensus amongst scientists that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant intended to be covered by the Clean Air Act.
"...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
The FDA regulates "drugs" under the very thorough Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Drugs, food and cosmetics that come under the jurisdiction of the act are quite well defined, as well as what and how the FDA is to regulate them. The statute doesn't say, "The FDA should regulate drugs." The statute defines what is a drug, what conditions a drug must meet in order to be regulated and how it is to be regulated. What causes any particular drug to be regulated is that it meets the definition and conditions that Congress established.
A good example is the definition of catfish, found within the act, "the term 'catfish' may only be considered to be a common or usual name (or part therof) for fish classified within the family Ictaluridae;..." No other fish can be regulated as a catfish.
The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C).
Furthermore the act goes on to state that the drugs have to be involved in interstate commerce.
So, while the statute doesn't list every drug that is regulated by the FDA, the statute gives a very clear definition of what a drug is and gives authority to the FDA to regulate it. But, what can be regulated is also very well defined. The statute lays out very specific prohibited acts that the FDA is supposed to regulate; these acts include: adulteration or misbranding, receipt of adulterated or misbranded drugs, false guarantees of what the drug does, forging, counterfeiting and a host of other items.
Even though the act doesn't list all approved drugs it does identify what list is to be recognized by the FDA, e.g. United States Pharmacopoeia.
The act was originally passed in the late 1940s and has been amended many times. Without the act the FDA wouldn't be permitted to regulate food, drugs or cosmetics. If the item doesn't fit the definition of a food, drug or cosmetic as outlined in the act then the FDA isn't permitted to regulate it. If the action isn't prohibited by the act then the FDA isn't permitted to regulate the action.
I would never argue that "drugs" as defined under statute is too broad and not specific enough because the act gives the lists from which "drugs" is to be taken. Why do you think the FDA is unable to regulate the late-night snake-oil infomercials? Could it be because those items don't meet the definition of drugs as laid out by the act? Or is it because the actions aren't prohibited? I think a layman watching the commercials would think that drugs were being advertised and they would be wrong.
Yet the FDA has enacted hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations during its time, none of which were voted on by the legislature...just like most administrative laws and agency rules.
Thus the issue is not whether congress should be explicit or not in crafting legislation, it is whether congress is crafting reasonably interpretable standards that's can be effectively interpreted and realistically implemented in practice. So basically this boils down to good laws and bad laws. I don't disagree that there are bad laws with good intentions. Dodd-Frank was a law that has a lot of good, but is so complicated and compromised that it will be next to enforceable without either being watered down or strengthened....sadly it's being watered down.
Anyone who thinks the US Constitution is an explicit legal document hasn't read it. Two words: implied powers.
You should see what prolonged exposure has on skin. I got some on my fingers while washing and it wrickled up like a crumpled tissue. The effect seems to be temporary, but skin surely shouldn't do that.
I think he refers to regulations - the very common process in which congress, rather than micro-managing every detail of a law, just deligates authority within a defined area to another agency. That's how most government departments operate. The FCC doesn't have to go to congress to pass a new law every time they reallocate some spectrum.
The president takes all credit and all blame for every action commited by the government at any level during their term.
That's just how it works. That's the cost of turning the office of president into a superstar position.
It was never intended to be like that.
Indeed a very important lesson that most people don't have a clue what the debate is about.
The EPA can continue to undermine the someone's finance in pursuit of fairy tales.
There, fixed that for you. By the way, that is a good thing for an actual economy, as it is stopped from drowning, draught, etc. Some of these fairy tales are already fairly convincing.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Oh, yeah, it's not like I was responding to a specific incorrect assertion of fact, or anything. Please pretend I was responding to some "greater" debate rather than one of the many specific kinds of ignorance that comprise the denialist position.
It's unbelievable to me that the most ardent supporters of big business are the most ignorant about basic principles of capitalism like externalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Congress mostly gives the minutiae to regulatory agencies .
The EPA (in the famous Chevron case) and in this one just does what it needs to do, and unless you can prove they were out of their minds when they wrote their policy to clarify law in front of an ALJ, you're screwed.
This is hugely delusional. US history is filled with examples of government support for big business, particularly since the start of the industrial revolution. All kinds of interesting uses of the law were developed to further this. It was (and remains) quite rare for the law to be anti-big business.
For example, during the industrial revolution, troops were sent in on many occasions, under the law, against workers trying to get better working conditions or reasonable pay.
Further, on many occasions, troops were even sent overseas to fight for big business. Read up on late 19th and early 20th century history for many examples.
Even as late as WWI, this was going on. That war was entirely about supporting big business: the Germans were threatening the hugely lucrative sale of arms and war supplies to the enormously wealthy British Empire, and big business couldn't allow that! It was never about neutral rights or "freedom of the seas" -- the British certainly didn't allow free trade with Germany, after all.
Governmental and legal support for big business has been the norm for most of US history. Only slowly does this change with respect to particular situations, and usually as soon as one problem is fixed another pops up.
Even when we have the illusion that a law is anti-big business, it's often the case that behind the scenes big business benefits. Many regulations exist on paper to improve society, but in practice are mostly used by established businesses to limit competition. Examine most laws with an intelligent and open mind, even something as basic as property law, and you'll find that there's more benefit to big business than harm.
What I wanted to point out is, that painting regulations as anti-big business without further elaboration is completely misguided, as you can paint anything as anti-big business, even the most pro-business laws. And property laws are the most pro-business laws of all, as they actually create the property you can trade.