3 ms·
The clean air act clearly gives the EPA power to regulate emissions of pollutants that are a threat to welfare. It's not really arguable that that coal power pl
by sudosysgen 4y ago
The clean air act clearly gives the EPA power to regulate emissions of pollutants that are a threat to welfare. It's not really arguable that that coal power plants fall into that or that greenhouse gases are pollutants that are a threat to welfare. This is a ridiculous decision that flies in the face of the law, and their justification that somehow this is too much and that Congress needed to specify that they had explicit authority over power plants because that is "too significant" is patently ridiculous. Congress gave them a mandate over pollutants, I don't see how that is possibly an overreach. The position that Congress can't put an agency in power of regulating emissions because that's too general is ridiculous.
- jaybrendansmith 4y agoExactly. We've gone beyond anything that remotely resembles the law. They are destroying the SC. Next step is for Biden to ignore their ruling. Then comes a breakdown of the federal government. This is the beginning of the end. I don't know about you, but I feel if the SC can do it, why should I obey the law? Fuck this SC.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoBut C02 is not designated as a pollutant according the CAA.
- sudosysgen 4y agoFirst of all, the Supreme Court doesn't make such an argument, and the fact that CO2 fits the definition of pollutant was upheld in federal jurisprudence. The CAA does not contain a specific list of pollutants. It has a definition, and the EPA may regulate any emissions of substances that fit those definitions. So, the EPA can consider a given substance that fits the definition to be under the purview of a program under the CAA on a case by case basis.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]