Slashdot Mirror
Congress Votes to Scrap Obama's Clean Power Plan (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes with news that the House voted 242-180 to repeal the EPA's Clean Power Plan, and 235-188 to block EPA rules governing emissions from new power plants. Science reports: "Congress has voted, largely along party lines, to block a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's climate change agenda. The votes are largely symbolic, however, because Obama plans to veto the bills. Still, Congressional Republicans, and a few Democrats, say they want to send a message to global leaders who are meeting this week to negotiate a new climate agreement that the majority of U.S. lawmakers may not agree with any deal."
"The votes are largely symbolic..." of what? How pigheaded and stupid people can be when they put their "minds" to it?
Can somebody please explain how it can be that the congress votes for "no change" and Obama can veto and make a change in the laws? A veto generally cancels changes, meaning we would be stuck with status quo, but not this time.
Nothing unconstitutional about exercising his veto power.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
No. What we see is a majority of elected legislators unable to stop unelected buearocrats(EPA) from imposing rules that are the equivalent of laws. Any federal rule, regulation, policy, etc that applies outside of the Executive branch should have to get legislative approval. SCOTUS should have stopped congress from abdicating its responsibility a long time ago.
You don't sound familiar with how the legislative process works in the United States.
If they are symbolic bills, then all we'll get here is bullshit discussion about AGW or worse, politics. Must be a slow news day (well, other than the bigger-than-average daily shooting in San Bernardino)
Because it's better than pointing out we've known for months that Obamacare is going bankrupt?
And the insurance industry that pushed so hard for Obamacare because it forces people to buy their product is begging for a taxpayer bailout?
India is moving away from coal and oil???? citation please. They have said they plan to TRIPLE emmisions as they invest heavily in coal and oil as they need cheap power to fuel their economic growth.
Shouldn't they be recycling the environmental bill, rather than scrapping it?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
This did get legislative approval, and executive approval, and has not met with judicial disapproval.
It was a particularly forward looking bit of legislation that granted the EPA the power to enact rules and regulations within the scope of their mandate so that they can react to environmental threats at a reasonable pace.
If someone doesn't agree, they can request a judicial review to overturn that particular rule or regulation if it is found to be out of scope.
That is how law (theoretically) works, and that is why it is so important that the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches maintain their separation.
You do understand that the executive branch does have the power and authority to execute the laws as it sees fit, right? You also know that this is exactly how the power was divided by the founders, I am assuming. And yet, you now these things and still post the crap you just did?
If they are symbolic bills, then all we'll get here is bullshit discussion about AGW or worse, politics. Must be a slow news day (well, other than the bigger-than-average daily shooting in San Bernardino)
Kind of like the gazillion attempts to eliminate Obamacare. Convince the nutcases that elected them that they are standing strong and resolute in the face of science and the Kenyan terror baby.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This did get legislative approval, and executive approval, and has not met with judicial disapproval.
More than just "not disapproval"-- it met with a decision by the Supreme Court that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 2007.
So, yes: all three branches.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
One of the ways the Federal Government encourages development of technologies is by passing regulations like this. They passed regulations on sulfur dioxide emissions to reduce acid rain and all the businesses were screaming about how much it was going to cost them yet a few years later they developed new technologies that allowed them to reduce the emissions at less cost than the original government estimate. Sometime technological development just needs a good kick in the butt like regulations to get moving.
Congress through the acts that created the EPA and in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, etc. have set out general principles for the EPA to follow and delegating the details of implementing those principles to the Executive Branch and EPA. It's completely constitutional to delegate rule making such as this.
SCOTUS has said that the EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the acts of Congress. If Congress wants to change things they have to pass a new act and get the President to not veto it.
Sometimes I think when we do something about these sorts of problems then the younger people coming up who didn't personally experience the problem tend to dismiss it as a problem. Having grown up in the 1950's and 1960's I'm well aware of how much air and water pollution was around back then and how much cleaner they are now but to someone born after 1980 it's not a real thing.
The same thing happens with the anti-vaxxers. My parents grew up in a world almost without vaccination and they weren't all that common when I was young. I had measles, rubella, chicken pox and whooping cough growing up and I knew people who were disabled by polio. The polio vaccine didn't come out until I was 6 years old and I remember how excited my parents were about it. But many of the anti-vaxxers grew up in a world where almost nobody got those diseases (because they'd been vaccinated) so they don't think it's that important.
I don't know what you can do about that because what you read in the history books doesn't seem that real since you didn't experience it yourself.
You want a source for the fact that Warren Buffet bought Burlington Northern for $35 billion? Okay:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=buffet+bu...
For the fact that Buffet is a huge Obama donor?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=buffet+ob...
For the fact that Buffet's trains carry the bulk of the oil from where the pipeline ends?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=keystone+...
For some of Obama's donors getting millions and millions of taxpayer money and never producing a single solar panel?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=solyndra
It's not that hard.
Because they hate us and want us to die.
No, they don't. They believe that the world is going to come to an end, and God is going to come down and take them all Home, and nothing we did here will really matter; the Earth is just here for us to use up and who cares what happens to it afterwards? So far as they're all concerned the sooner it all comes to an End the better, they think there's a Heaven waiting for them where everything will be wonderful. Of course they're all idiots and will destroy our REAL home unless we reign them in.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
it's not negative about Republicans, it just what they do IS negative.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
of course not. That's when a GOP Prez is in office...torture and what not. minor thing really
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
And we have since seen 50 years of industry move to China and elsewhere.
That would have happened anyway, since in China (until recently, anyway) and other third world countries, labor is dirt-cheap.
And in the meantime, I can breathe fairly clean, healthy air, even here in Los Angeles. Try that in Beijing....
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Well Ill be more concerned when its not the president who has used the fewest vetos and the least executive actions in 80 years. Obama has, if anything, been too restraimed with the powers his role constitionally require him to exercise.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The Legislative branch is supposed to represent the PEOPLE of this country, not just it's CEO's. The laws they are trying to repeal on ones that are supposed to help not just Americans, but the whole world to have cleaner air, cleaner water and be more sustainable. The problem is these wack-jobs have been convinced that there is no way us poor little human beings can ever change our planet in any significant way; that's the purview of 'THE CREATOR". I've had this diatribe spewed at me every time I've tried to talk intelligently about carbon emissions, global warming, you name it. It's almost boiler plate (direct from Fox News I'm sure) "I can stand on a mountain top and look at the majesty of the earth and KNOW that GOD created all things, and nothing man can do will change it!". I don't know where this rhetoric came from, but it's almost the same wording. If for nothing else, the ultra-conservative religious right have GOT to have the best PR machine since the original theological spin doctors a 1000 years ago.
If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
Actually, that is a particularly un-Christian position
Where did I say they were 'good' or even actual Christians? They're not, any more than certain Sunni extremists are considered good or proper Muslims. But that's what these people seem to believe, and they prove it with their actions. You want to call them out for being 'bad Christians'? Go right ahead, be sure to let us know how that's working for you. They'll gleefully fuck the environment of the entire planet because they believe it's their God-given right to do so, and they collectively have enough money and influence to make sure anyone that gets in the way of what they want to do, can have their lives ruined, permanently.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
ZOMG! The EPA is out of control! What will we do without polluted air, lakes, rivers and aquifers?!? The environmental disaster remediation sector of the economy is going to implode!
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Why do you think these pollutants are no longer being spewed out? Because the power companies felt bad for all the acid rain and pollution they were causing? No, it's because the EPA came into existance and made them clean up their acts. There is always more that can be done and yes CO2 can be captured. I didn't say it is easy or economically feasible but yes it can be done.
No Brains, No Headaches
This is kind of important, does anyone want rolling brownouts/blackouts because we have to decommission coal plants before the replacement plants are online?
The last time such a thing happened in the US, it was blamed on environmental regulation in "California" but it turned out the real problem was in Houston at a company called Enron.
Who was out for profits.
So you can worry about the EPA if you want, but my eyes will be on the money leeches. They actually did cause the problem you fear.
The EPA? Yeah, OK, they shouldn't shut down plants capriciously, but that kind of problem is something they already know about.
I do. Perhaps you might suggest an alternative motivation that does not involve tinfoil has?
Gosh! Dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? What could possibly go wrong??? But that said, you're flat wrong.
Coal plants are the leading source of SO2 and aso emit tons of NOx and Mercury, to say nothing of the ash, lead, carbon monoxide, VOCs and arsenic.
Do you own coal interests? What's your motivation for shilling in this way?
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
so is it 'Obamacare' you are mad at or partisan asshats in congress
Yes.
Insurance companies are greedy, opportunistic, evil fucks who jump on a shift on the market to jack prices or worse, in an intentional effort to make ACA look bad? The devil you say. Did the ACA mandate that they charge you more, or did they just tell you that?
Ok, let me back up. Originally I was tentatively optimistic about Obamacare. It had caps on insurance company profits. It had a public option/medicaid extension. I was warming up more to single payer, but I figured that Obamacare would be a good compromise.
Well, as you noted, the PR arm of the One Party did their best to run propaganda piece after propaganda piece. Free Obamacare sex changes! Be afraid! Aaaaaaa! Be angry! The gay agenda! Women want to murder babies! Rarrrr!
So then it went to SCOTUS. I figured, ok, the whole thing is going to get "commerce claused." But nope, SCOTUS further fucked it up by striking down the public option and upholding the individual mandate!
Then we see overbudget IT project blow deadline after deadline and more rabble rabble rabble from the PR department of the One Party. I was pleasantly surprised, however, when Kentucky went live with little to no issues with their online exchange. Point out that it was entirely possible, with honest effort, to implement Obamacare because Kentucky of all places managed to make it happen? Nope, it got drowned out with this state's exchange (contracted out to a firm full of gaslighting asshole managers) is never going to work! That state's exchange (contracted out to a firm full of gassholes) is screwing up everybody paperwork! The federal exchange (contracted out to a firm full of gassholes) is a mess! Aaaaaaa! Tremble in terror! Look at the mess those librels caused! Be angry! Rarrrr!
(Meanwhile, Kentucky just quietly chugs along.)
It still gobsmacks me to this day that even as the ACA was coming into effect that so many people could welcome various provisions of it while completely losing their shit about this "Obamacare" demon that was going to destroy America and turn everyone's sons gay. (I just say Obamacare because hey, how the fuck am I supposed to get hundreds of millions of retards to realize that it's called the fucking A. C. A.? That Nixon and Romney should also get fair credit where credit is due?)
So, back to the part I quoted. Of course it's the fault of every. single. fucking. private interest in our profit-based health care system. Why should the (privately-owned) hospital lower prices? The consumer doesn't have a say and doesn't get the bill. Why should the insurance companies lower prices? The consumer doesn't have a say and has to pay that bill regardless, the out-of-pocket cost of which changes little based on actual usage, at least as long as it's less than the "tax" for not having insurance--which is where I'm sitting right now.
I'm paying for a near useless product because if I don't, the government will charge me even more.
I may be a libertarian, but like I said, I seem to be getting more liberal the older I get. At least for some things. Single payer healthcare (not fucking insurance--healthCARE!) is one of those things.
Maybe in a libertarian utopia, I'd pay for my meds and you (not you literally) could "religious objection!" all day long, but the pharmacy who's not "religious objection!"ing would be glad for the steady income I bring them. I wouldn't pay for your meds. I'd pay for my sex change. I don't want you to pay for my meds or plastic surgery. You'd pay for your whatever it is, maybe a complicated sports injury. It might work. I don't know. It's clear that's a fantasy world.
There are at least several examples right here in the real world of singly payer working out and keeping the price of that free lunch reasonable. I guess I need to read up more on bleeding heart libertarianism. I may still tend toward idealism, but I'm a practical person first and foremost.