4 ms·

The entire point was to kick this to Congress, which they know can't pass anything, thus achieving their entire goal of allowing companies to pollute and do wha

The entire point was to kick this to Congress, which they know can't pass anything, thus achieving their entire goal of allowing companies to pollute and do whatever they want to make an additional buck.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
I see it more as a fundamental perspective that we need to give Congress a kick, which is might be excruciatingly ineffective right now, but we cannot continue with the expectation that our Federal legislature is too incompetent or disincentivized to do their jobs.
lolinder 4y ago
This tendency of people to attribute the worst possible motives to their political opponents is tiring. I live in a deeply conservative state, but I spend most of my online time on HN. This puts me in the middle of two vastly different cultures with vastly different sets of values. I have listened to both sides explain their sincerely held views. I have listened to both sides talk about the other side. Each group will tell me "but those other guys are evil and only want to ____!" Each group then explains their own views, and you know what? Each group's views are rational. Each group's views are compassionate. Both groups really believe that they want what's best for the world, and neither group has thought through their ideas better than the other. Both have severe flaws in their reasoning, but both also really care. In a word: both groups are human. I think it would do us all good to assume that most people are acting out of sincerely held beliefs, and that most people really do want to do good. I know there are exceptions, but the world would be a better place if we didn't treat those exceptions as though they were the rule.
- res0nat0r 4y ago
  There is absolutely *zero* reason to rule that the EPA, which has existed since the 70's has no authority to regulate the environment. None. I'm attributing the worst to these people, because we know who they are. They want the government to have no ability to at all to put any restrictions on capital at all costs. They're simply doing it now because they have the raw power to do so.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    I've commented elsewhere on the reasons why the Supreme Court might rule the way they did. If you're sincerely curious, feel free to look at my other comments. Here, I'll just observe that you're doing it again: you're projecting the worst possible motive on someone else's decision without giving due consideration to why else they might believe differently than you.
  - nostromo 4y ago
    If the authorization of the EPA was to "regulate the environment" then there is nothing they couldn't do. The EPA was largely create to regulate pollutants based on laws written in the 1950s and 60s. It's not at all clear that the original lawmakers would consider carbon a pollutant -- it's something you and I are exhaling right at this moment. So saying that the EPA needs authorization to regulate emissions that can cause climate change seems reasonable to me.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago

I see it more as a fundamental perspective that we need to give Congress a kick, which is might be excruciatingly ineffective right now, but we cannot continue with the expectation that our Federal legislature is too incompetent or disincentivized to do their jobs.

lolinder 4y ago

This tendency of people to attribute the worst possible motives to their political opponents is tiring. I live in a deeply conservative state, but I spend most of my online time on HN. This puts me in the middle of two vastly different cultures with vastly different sets of values. I have listened to both sides explain their sincerely held views. I have listened to both sides talk about the other side. Each group will tell me "but those other guys are evil and only want to ____!" Each group then explains their own views, and you know what? Each group's views are rational. Each group's views are compassionate. Both groups really believe that they want what's best for the world, and neither group has thought through their ideas better than the other. Both have severe flaws in their reasoning, but both also really care. In a word: both groups are human. I think it would do us all good to assume that most people are acting out of sincerely held beliefs, and that most people really do want to do good. I know there are exceptions, but the world would be a better place if we didn't treat those exceptions as though they were the rule.

res0nat0r 4y ago
There is absolutely *zero* reason to rule that the EPA, which has existed since the 70's has no authority to regulate the environment. None. I'm attributing the worst to these people, because we know who they are. They want the government to have no ability to at all to put any restrictions on capital at all costs. They're simply doing it now because they have the raw power to do so.
- lolinder 4y ago
  I've commented elsewhere on the reasons why the Supreme Court might rule the way they did. If you're sincerely curious, feel free to look at my other comments. Here, I'll just observe that you're doing it again: you're projecting the worst possible motive on someone else's decision without giving due consideration to why else they might believe differently than you.
- nostromo 4y ago
  If the authorization of the EPA was to "regulate the environment" then there is nothing they couldn't do. The EPA was largely create to regulate pollutants based on laws written in the 1950s and 60s. It's not at all clear that the original lawmakers would consider carbon a pollutant -- it's something you and I are exhaling right at this moment. So saying that the EPA needs authorization to regulate emissions that can cause climate change seems reasonable to me.