2 ms·

The article is about australia, not the U.S. And in the U.S. the legislature isn't acting because the public doesn't want it to act. People are not buying into

by rsj_hn 5y ago

The article is about australia, not the U.S. And in the U.S. the legislature isn't acting because the public doesn't want it to act. People are not buying into the hysteria and they have no wish to chase even more carbon intensive industries to China, which is now producing more carbon gases than the rest of the world combined, and those emissions are growing at 8% a year. Rational people look at that, look at the dismal track record of these end of the world predictions, and conclude that there doesn't seem to be much point in punishing domestic industries and incentivizing them to move even more production to Asia. I get that this enrages people who are still clinging to the idea of a global consensus, but China has effectively shut the door on that option, and the consensus was primarily just among elites in the west. So it's understandable that politicians in the west are refusing to act, whereas judges and those insulated from public opinion are free to wring their hands.

hcurtiss 5y ago
Agreed. The US Congress can act when it wants to. The ACA passed, even if altered by subsequent legislatures. The problem the environmental contingent has is that there is not the political will to move their highly controversial legislation, so they are looking to the judiciary to act instead. As I said above, that kind of activism without political recourse leads to some very negative outcomes.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The ACA is the exception that shows exactly how hard it is to pass such a bill. The ACA passed with 0 republican votes. It only passed because Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Whitehouse. That still wouldn't have been enough (due to the filibuster), but the Democrats also had a big enough majority (60 of 100) in the Senate to override any filibuster. I do believe that if Democrats had that much political power today, we would see much more significant climate change billa being passed.

by rsj_hn 5y ago

hcurtiss 5y ago

Agreed. The US Congress can act when it wants to. The ACA passed, even if altered by subsequent legislatures. The problem the environmental contingent has is that there is not the political will to move their highly controversial legislation, so they are looking to the judiciary to act instead. As I said above, that kind of activism without political recourse leads to some very negative outcomes.

shkkmo 5y ago
The ACA is the exception that shows exactly how hard it is to pass such a bill. The ACA passed with 0 republican votes. It only passed because Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Whitehouse. That still wouldn't have been enough (due to the filibuster), but the Democrats also had a big enough majority (60 of 100) in the Senate to override any filibuster. I do believe that if Democrats had that much political power today, we would see much more significant climate change billa being passed.