3 ms·

None of the parties or judges dispute that CO2 is a pollutant. Even if you personally dispute it, Congress explicitly granted the EPA the authority to determin

None of the parties or judges dispute that CO2 is a pollutant. Even if you personally dispute it, Congress explicitly granted the EPA the authority to determine what's an air pollutant and what's not: > For the purpose of establishing national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, the Administrator shall within 30 days after December 31, 1970, publish, and shall from time to time thereafter revise, a list which includes each air pollutant—emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;

pdonis 4y ago
> None of the parties or judges dispute that CO2 is a pollutant. The fact that all of the parties and judges are calling a tail a leg, still doesn't make it a leg.
- scarmig 4y ago
  You should feel free to decide that a leg is actually a liver; that just makes you silly. As far as the matter at hand goes, though, it's the EPA that has the authority to make that designation (at least until the SCOTUS decides that only it has that authority).
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > it's the EPA that has the authority to make that designation (at least until the SCOTUS decides that only it has that authority). And the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on whether the EPA's rulemaking is within its statutory authority or not. Which is what it did today. So why are you objecting? Both governmental entities are exercising their authority. The fact that one such exercise, the EPA's, is one you like, and the other such exercise, the Court's is one you don't like, is irrelevant, according to your own logic, just as it's irrelevant, according to your own logic, that the EPA's rule under review here defies logic, common sense, and the plain meaning of words.
    - scarmig 4y ago
      Bit of a sleight of hand there: you were arguing first that this court case was about whether CO2 was a pollutant or not, and I simply pointed out that there was nobody arguing it wasn't and all agreed that the EPA had the authority to designate it as such, as opposed to your "pollution is whatever pdonis feels in his gut is pollution" standard. So, sure, I'm criticizing the Court's decision, because it's an incoherent and ideologically motivated decision. Doing so helps remove the mystique of the SCOTUS justices as some kind of apolitical actors in the sytem.
      - pdonis 4y ago
        > Bit of a sleight of hand there No, you are the one who shifted your ground, not me. You started out arguing that calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one--but you only applied that argument (incorrectly, in my opinion, but that's beside the present point) to the SCOTUS decision you didn't like, not to the EPA rulemaking you liked. Then, when I called you on it, you retreated to the argument that the EPA is just exercising its authority--which applies just as much to SCOTUS. So make up your mind: are you going to base your position on actual logic, common sense, and the plain meaning of words, or on government entities exercising their authority no matter what? > I'm criticizing the Court's decision, because it's an incoherent and ideologically motivated decision. I disagree that it is, since it's just pointing out that Congress didn't intend to delegate to the EPA the sweeping authority to restructure the entire energy sector of the economy, even if we accept that CO2 is a "pollutant" for the sake of argument. The statute does not give the EPA authority to regulate pollutants however it wants. It only gives it the authority to do so in certain ways. That said, however, I'm criticising the EPA's rulemaking on the same grounds that you are criticizing the SCOTUS decision: that it's incoherent and ideologically motivated. Any such criticism presupposes that just because a government entity has the formal authority to do something, doesn't make it right. So it is no answer to my criticism to say that the EPA was just exercising its authority.

pdonis 4y ago

> None of the parties or judges dispute that CO2 is a pollutant. The fact that all of the parties and judges are calling a tail a leg, still doesn't make it a leg.

scarmig 4y ago
You should feel free to decide that a leg is actually a liver; that just makes you silly. As far as the matter at hand goes, though, it's the EPA that has the authority to make that designation (at least until the SCOTUS decides that only it has that authority).
- pdonis 4y ago
  > it's the EPA that has the authority to make that designation (at least until the SCOTUS decides that only it has that authority). And the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on whether the EPA's rulemaking is within its statutory authority or not. Which is what it did today. So why are you objecting? Both governmental entities are exercising their authority. The fact that one such exercise, the EPA's, is one you like, and the other such exercise, the Court's is one you don't like, is irrelevant, according to your own logic, just as it's irrelevant, according to your own logic, that the EPA's rule under review here defies logic, common sense, and the plain meaning of words.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    Bit of a sleight of hand there: you were arguing first that this court case was about whether CO2 was a pollutant or not, and I simply pointed out that there was nobody arguing it wasn't and all agreed that the EPA had the authority to designate it as such, as opposed to your "pollution is whatever pdonis feels in his gut is pollution" standard. So, sure, I'm criticizing the Court's decision, because it's an incoherent and ideologically motivated decision. Doing so helps remove the mystique of the SCOTUS justices as some kind of apolitical actors in the sytem.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > Bit of a sleight of hand there No, you are the one who shifted your ground, not me. You started out arguing that calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one--but you only applied that argument (incorrectly, in my opinion, but that's beside the present point) to the SCOTUS decision you didn't like, not to the EPA rulemaking you liked. Then, when I called you on it, you retreated to the argument that the EPA is just exercising its authority--which applies just as much to SCOTUS. So make up your mind: are you going to base your position on actual logic, common sense, and the plain meaning of words, or on government entities exercising their authority no matter what? > I'm criticizing the Court's decision, because it's an incoherent and ideologically motivated decision. I disagree that it is, since it's just pointing out that Congress didn't intend to delegate to the EPA the sweeping authority to restructure the entire energy sector of the economy, even if we accept that CO2 is a "pollutant" for the sake of argument. The statute does not give the EPA authority to regulate pollutants however it wants. It only gives it the authority to do so in certain ways. That said, however, I'm criticising the EPA's rulemaking on the same grounds that you are criticizing the SCOTUS decision: that it's incoherent and ideologically motivated. Any such criticism presupposes that just because a government entity has the formal authority to do something, doesn't make it right. So it is no answer to my criticism to say that the EPA was just exercising its authority.