11 ms·
The Supreme Court’s Latest Decision Is a Blow to Stopping Climate Change
- mlindner 4y agoPeople need to not be jumping to conclusions based on the article title and actually look at the details of the case in question and the history of the case. You need to look at the reasoning used, not whether you personally like the ultimate decision or not. Because this bill was stayed by Supreme Court, removed by Trump, and then replaced by a new interpretation put in place by the Trump EPA, this interpretation in question has basically never been in place in the some 12 years since it was passed. Wikipedia has a good summary of the events leading up to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA > The case centers on language of Section 7411(d) of Title 42 of the United States Code[2] authorizing the EPA to regulate emissions from existing power plants, which when amended and signed into law in 1990 mistakenly included contradictory language from both the House and Senate's version of the bill that never was reconciled, leaving the interpretation to the EPA. > The suit stems from a 2015 Obama administration EPA rule, the Clean Power Plan, based on a statutory interpretation of section § 7411(d) towards meeting the Paris Agreement in carbon dioxide emissions reductions. The Clean Power Plan was challenged by several states and coal industry companies, and stayed by order of the Supreme Court. With the Trump administration, the EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan in favor of the less-aggressive Affordable Clean Power rule in 2019 based on a different interpretation of § 7411(d), and the case against the Clean Power Plan rendered moot. Several other states and health and environmental groups challenged this new rule, and the District of Columbia Circuit Court ruled in January 2021 that the Affordable Clean Power rule was arbitrary and capricious and misinterpreted § 7411(d), vacating this new rule. > Several of the states that first challenged the Clean Power Plan as well as coal industry-related companies challenged the D.C. Circuit's ruling on their analysis of the § 7411(d) and the EPA's authority granted by it, concerned that the Circuit's ruling would give the EPA far broader powers on emissions regulation. West Virginia v. EPA represents a consolidation of four petitions that the Supreme Court certified to review the D.C. Circuit's decision. > The court issued its 6-3 opinion on June 30, 2022, ruling that regulation of power plant emissions on a national scale fell within the major questions doctrine, and within that, Congress did not grant the EPA authority to regulate emissions based on generation shifting mechanisms, which would have invalidated the Clean Power Plan. The EPA may still continue to regulate emissions through emissions reduction technologies. And as for the meaning of that "major questions doctrine". > The major questions doctrine is a rough analogue to the nondelegation doctrine, where the Supreme Court has held in recent years that in order for them to do so, Congress must have clearly authorized agencies to regulate issues of national significance.[14] When Congress fails to comply with this clear statement rule, the courts infer that Congress did not intend to empower the agency. I'm not clear exactly how to interpret this personally.
- pstuart 4y agoThe best court money can buy!
- mlindner 4y agoThe court isn't influenced by money.
- pstuart 4y agoIt was in its composition -- https://www.acslaw.org/analysis/reports/dark-money/ https://www.acslaw.org/analysis/reports/dark-money/
- mlindner 4y agoA far left wing organization isn't a very good source.
- malermeister 4y agoA far right wing court isn't a very good court, yet here we are.
- mlindner 4y agoThe court isn't very far right. They're middle of the road if anything. Lest we forget, they upheld obamacare and shot down Trump's border walls.
- malermeister 4y agoThat was a very different court.
- pstuart 4y agoNot far right to you. I'm curious what you think exemplifies far right.
- lven 4y agoPerhaps this is good to change things up and see what other solutions are possible to address climate change. EPA does not have the will of the people or Congress, which detracts from its powers and potential impact. EPA may not be geared to address climate change or large energy-economy problems - just look at the current situation - whatever they are doing is not working. They are good at pollution mitigation and rule making. Climate change solutions may not be helped by rules or EPA type measures. Instead they require environments amenable to systematic energy transition: low on regulation, low on entry barriers to innovation, low on rules and policies, financially punishing to old solutions. Climate action is techno-economic challenge the EPA might not be suited for.
- cpurdy 4y agoThank you comrade for your wise words.
- polotics 4y agolimiting CO2 is not an "old" solution. it was basically never tried. CO2 by my estimate, will limit itself through human population culling.
- spencerflem 4y agoThis is so outrageously wrong. Currently, by far the most cost effective way to remove CO2 is to not create it in the first place. Congress has tried to allocate funding towards all sorts of measures and they are consistently blocked by the GOP. This ruling is both legally unsound and completely disastrous.
- WalterBright 4y agoCO2 emission cannot be eliminated. After all, you and I exhale CO2. The solution is to tax it.
- spencerflem 4y agoRight, and by taxing it less CO2 is produced. I'm all for this but please
- tamaharbor 4y agoLegitimate question: How can US measures stop climate change if many other countries are planning to construct and operate hundreds of coal plants for electric generation?
- dataflow 4y agoIn theory at least it might develop new technologies that might change the direction other countries want to go, too. In practice I'm not sure how anyone is going to make a dent without switching to nuclear power.
- etchalon 4y agoWe can offset the efforts of other countries.
- cm2187 4y agoNot by much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:Carbon_dioxide_emissions-01.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- stjohnswarts 4y agoThat's never gonna work. If we figure out how to get to net zero electricity then we have to put pressure on other countries to do the same and show them how or it won't happen. It's possible China will surpass us in 10 or 20 years though and make that irrelevant.
- throwaway5752 4y agoThe US can reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions, which are substantial. Then it can develop and sell renewable generation technology to the rest of the world. The US has extraordinary scientific, engineering, and manufacturing talent and can do it.
- uejfiweun 4y agoI'd certainly love to believe this, but it has most definitely not materialized yet. I'm not sure that self-inflicting economic pain in order to incentivize development of alternative fuels is a good strategy.
- WalterBright 4y ago
- WalterBright 4y agoBiden's climate change agenda has actually increased CO2 emissions. The thing is, natural gas has twice the energy in it per C atom than coal does. But Biden's regulations have targeted ng, which means that more filthy coal gets burned instead. The answer is not targeting coal or ng. It's targeting the quantity of C emitted into the air. The very best way to do this is to tax the C in fuels that get burnt. Then it is not necessary to have all sorts of regulations about what can be burned, etc. Just tax the C. The market will then sort it out.
- duped 4y agoCarbon taxes/credits are a great and practical idea that is politically dead in the womb.
- vkou 4y agoIt's 'politically dead' because the fossil fuel industry owns the entire republican party, and a good chunk of the democratic one.
- epistasis 4y agoI used to be a huge fan of carbon taxes, but I think for them to be effective they would have needed to be adopted back in the 90s or early 2000s. The speed at which the market adapts to small price changes is not fast enough. Additionally, we need to take quick action in ways that have very different costs for different industries. For example, steel and concrete have large process emissions, and are industries with extremely low margins, high capital costs, and long capital lifetimes. Decarbonization of these industries is unlikely to happen even with high carbon taxes of $200/ton, because not only is the successor tech not yet understood, there's no guarantee that an investment in a potential carbon-less concrete will have a market. A much better approach is to guarantee the market, at any price, but let it be a competitive market for that carbon-free steel or carbon-free concrete. E.g. a small number of customers that band together and state that they will only buy carbon-free concrete for construction, that needs X million tons in the next 5 years. This will allow entrepeneurs to raise money, because they have a guaranteed market where they only compete with the new tech, rather than having to compete with the general market plus a price. Let those initial businesses get going, iterate, and drive down costs. Carbon taxes are great if you view the economy as a series of interacting spherical cows, which is how economists are the macro level must envision it in order to get their models to work. We, as entrepreneurs, can start to de-spherify the cows and see where the models fail, and reality must be substituted.
- YourFriend87 4y ago
- swatcoder 4y agoSome might have expected Scientific American to exhibit such bias, but even the best of us can be caught off guard.
- rpmisms 4y agoYes, they essentially nuked Chevron deference through this decision, an extremely pro-voter and pro-transparency move. Good. Edit: I'm contextualizing this opinion through a legal lens, pointing to what it really does. From now on, Congress will have to pass laws (e.g. Do Their Jobs) to pass environmental legislation, instead of relying on the bureaucratic executive branch. Also expressing that this is good, which is a personal opinion, but I think I'm providing value here.
- spaced-out 4y agoGreat for the voters living today, sure. Unfortunately the climate isn't going to wait for us to work through our political issues.
- zackees 4y agoIf it was really about saving the planet then Nuclear would have been allowed to replace fossil fuel.
- spaced-out 4y agoYou think the EPA is blocking nuclear power?
- stjohnswarts 4y agoNo but the government is and the EPA is part of the mess.
- guelo 4y agoThere is no transparency here. The court elevated the extremely vague made up "major-questions doctrine" which essentially says that the court gets to decide if a regulatory agency's actions are "major" enough that congress has to act. It's the opposite of clarity. There's no principle besides whether the right-wing judge thinks something is major or not.
- guelo 4y agoThis radical activist court is going to continue delivering major right-wing victories for the foreseeable future and there's absolutely nothing that can be done to stop them. Every right-wing dream will become reality. I'm having a hard time envisioning what this country will look like in say 10 years. The America as it was known in the 20th century certainly won't exist.
- tablespoon 4y agoI think you should move to Canada. It's implemented liberal policies the US Democrats can only dream of, and it's northerly location will be advantageous as climate change progresses.
- guelo 4y agoTypical vindictive gloating right wing response, basically "it's my country if you don't like it get out". In a way it's true since an aggressive right wing faction has captured the least democratic institution for a generation. Democracy is dead. But what happens when half the country can't affect change for decades no matter how large their electoral victories? A balance has been lost, it feels dangerous to me.
- tablespoon 4y agoHuh? You don't seem to like the direction the US is headed, and you don't seem to think it's possible to do anything to stop it. Given those beliefs, it seems quite reasonable to abandon ship and move somewhere more friendly. Polarization has really fried peoples' brains.
- guelo 4y ago(Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being genuine, even with my apparently fried brain) That's certainly a possible future if the right tightens their grip on society too much, we could experience some brain drain as those with the ability to leave do so, but it would be a tiny minority of people. We saw some signs of that during Trump's tenure, mostly scientists and academics not wanting to study or go to conferences here.
- ARandomerDude 4y agoFrom the Supreme Court's majority opinion: > a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. Honestly it's hard to see how that position is unreasonable. If Congress wants the EPA to have this power, let them vote to give it. If Congress does not want the EPA to have this power, then the EPA shouldn't attempt to exercise power they don't have. There's really no other solution if we're going to have a representative government.
- epistasis 4y agoCongress did vote for EPA to have this power. The Supreme Court decided that they didn't like where that power led, and is now restricting the types of laws that Congress can make.
- rayiner 4y agoCongress voted in 1970 for the EPA to have the power to address climate change by controlling the nationwide mix of power generators? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States) I think if you asked any of the folks in 1970 whether that was the intent of the Clean Air Act they’d be surprised.
- epistasis 4y agoI don't understand why your question could possibly be answered by anything but a yes. Can you provide any evidence that regulating clean air does not apply to air pollutants? If a person thinks that CO2 is not air pollution, then the onus is on them to show that it's not. Repealing an entire class of laws in order to stop undesired scientific conclusions is not a good way to set legal precedent.
- mlindner 4y agoHow did that act give carte blanche to the federal government to basically completely commandeer the electricity sector in each state? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Power_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Power_Plan > The plan will require individual states to meet specific standards with respect to reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.[22] States are free to reduce emissions by various means, and must submit emissions reductions plans by September 2016, or, with an extension approval, by September 2018.[23] If a state has not submitted a plan by then, the EPA will impose its own plan on that state.[23]
- thompson1 4y ago[dead]
- rayiner 4y agoThis decision simply told the EPA that it needs specific authorization to engage in a sweeping restructuring of the country’s power generation mix to address climate change, and can’t rely on its existing authority to tell coal plants to install particulate scrubbers. This is a huge problem warranting an apoplectic reaction because everyone knows Congress won’t do that. In fact, voters are about to hand Congress back over to the GOP because they’re mad about paying $5/gallon for gas. The vast majority of Americans want to address climate change, but won’t pay even $10/month extra on their electric bill to do so: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-.... Having Congress vote to raise everyone’s energy costs is a total non-starter. The unstated subtext to all this is that, to address climate change, we need to bypass democracy and impose sweeping changes through unelected bureaucrats and boring administrative proceedings nobody pays attention to. And it’s quite revealing who thinks that’s a good idea and who thinks it’s a bad idea.
- pavlov 4y agoYou use “sweeping” twice to describe EPA’s rules, which makes them sound unreasonable and over-reaching. Yet the only example you give is requiring coal plants to install particulate scrubbers, which… sounds perfectly reasonable coming from an agency tasked to reduce air pollution?
- mlindner 4y ago> You use “sweeping” twice to describe EPA’s rules, which makes them sound unreasonable and over-reaching. This is what the alternative interpretation would allow. > The plan will require individual states to meet specific standards with respect to reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.[22] States are free to reduce emissions by various means, and must submit emissions reductions plans by September 2016, or, with an extension approval, by September 2018.[23] If a state has not submitted a plan by then, the EPA will impose its own plan on that state.[23]
- rayiner 4y agoSorry, the sentence is ambiguous. That’s exactly what the EPA can do. What I meant to say is the EPA can’t use its authority to tell coal plants to install particulate scrubbers, which it has, to go and tell the whole industry to stop using coal.
- UkrainianJew 4y agoUnpopular opinion: any reasonable policies and restrictions are always compromises between the 2 polar opposite extremes. For example, killing all humans on Earth would completely stop climate change, but the price is unreasonably high. As the opposite extreme, reducing food waste hardly has any disadvantages, but is not sufficient on its own to stop the warming. Compromises are found iteratively - moving the lever too far creates pressure on the opposing side, and the regulation changes back. Globalization eliminated the feedback loop. Each time the West hardens environmental standards, a some "dirty" production just moves to less developed countries, along with the jobs, knowledge and culture for achieving things. That CO2 is still emitted overseas, but we conveniently turn a blind eye to it, arguing whether we should have shorter showers or ban plastic straws. Now it's biting us hard, since it turned out those countries have much less political stability, so as the shit finally hit the fan, we suddenly have a shortage of everything. Maybe, just maybe, having the emissions managed on the state level will let different states explore different potential trade-offs between being green and being dysfunctional, and we can hopefully find a better compromise that takes a more complete picture into consideration.
- redisman 4y agoLetting states choose how they hit their CO2 allotment is totally fine as long as there is a universal per capita CO2 goal for the whole country. If there is no cap then self serving states will simply emit as much as is maximally profitable
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- woodruffw 4y ago> Unpopular opinion: any reasonable policies and restrictions are always compromises between the 2 polar opposite extremes. King Solomon, is that you[1]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon
- jdpigeon 4y agoThat's an interesting argument. My counter for globalization is that it leads to developed countries taking the lead in policy decisions for other countries around the world. One example is the US controlled substances act being copied nearly identically around the world. It's possible that if the US hadn't passed that law, most countries would have had legal pot throughout the 20th century. I'm afraid that the supreme court stifling the ability of the US to legislate against carbon emissions is going to slow down the entire world who has been looking to the US as an example on what to do.
- jimmygrapes 4y agoSince this keeps popping up on the front page and nobody seems to understand, here is the list of criteria air pollutants: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table As noted in the above link, Congress from time to time amends the Act to update the list, which was last done in 1990. That's all it takes: an amendment to the Act, passed by Congress. They can and have done this before, and yes, even with "climate deniers" signing off on it. The sole reason it hasn't been amended since then is because of the increased practice of doing omnibus bills and each group adding unreasonable expenditures and pet projects to otherwise uncontroversial legislation. How that gets stopped I have no idea, since the only legislators I am aware of who oppose that sort of thing get lambasted by hyper partisan media and the voters who gobble up that propaganda.
- oliwarner 4y agoIt's a blow to the whole planet —we're all stuck here— but I've got to wonder how much more of these anti-federal decisions the Union can take. It's not just bad that another state might harm the same environment you're trying your hardest to protect, they might start to outcompete methods of doing things cleaner, costing local jobs, green mindshare and votes. A progressive succession seems more likely every day.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoAnd based on precedent, a conservative federal government could roll into succession states, slaughter resistance, and assert military control.