3 ms·

> That is precisely what they did. It was called the Clean Air Act, and Congress passed it in 1963. Given that the danger of CO2 was completely unknown in 1963

> That is precisely what they did. It was called the Clean Air Act, and Congress passed it in 1963. Given that the danger of CO2 was completely unknown in 1963 and green energy technologies almost didn't exist. I'm not sure how you can claim that.

gnulinux 4y ago
> Given that the danger of CO2 was completely unknown in 1963 This is a bizarre claim! From https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ > In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth's atmosphere to global warming. Also read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_sc...
- mlindner 4y ago
  Rather than "completely" maybe it would have been more correct to say "widely". The idea of global warming basically started in the late 60s with a very few scientists talking about it. Rediscovering old previously discredited scientific papers from the late 19th and early 20th century doesn't make it date all the way back to then.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    This simply misses the point. Very few laws are restricted to the best science of their day: nearly all allow for administrative interpretation so that the US Government can apply the law without having to relitigate its essential qualities. The CAA empowers the EPA to identify pollutants, and that's what the EPA has (correctly!) done. Whether or not the scientific consensus from the 1960s agrees is immaterial.
    - Jcowell 4y ago
      > This simply misses the point. Very few laws are restricted to the best science of their day: nearly all allow for administrative interpretation so that the US Government can apply the law without having to relitigate its essential qualities. Precisely, if it was the case then arms of the second amendment wouldn’t apply to modern day firearms.
      - _uy6i 4y ago
        Maybe, or one could argue that the second amendment applies to the most modern and capable arms of the day e.g. the musket of the time = an assault rifle today Don’t want to talk guns, but want to illustrate the challenges of making such claims
        woodruffw 4y ago
        Why would the Second Amendment be interpreted in that way and the CAA not be allowed similar breadth in interpreting what is a pollutant? The latter is actually explicit in this regard; the former has been constructed through judicial interpretation.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  No one was talking about CO2 in 1963 other than a few scientists. It didn't reach critical mass until the late 80s. The law was written for known pollutants at the time. Congress is just going to have to add to the powers of the EPA, it's as simple as that.
pavlov 4y ago
Did the text of the Clean Air Act explicitly say it applies only to pollutants known in 1963? If laws can’t be interpreted to account for new circumstances, then it must be legal to pay to have someone killed as long as you use Bitcoin — after all the law didn’t specifically ban the use of Bitcoin.
woodruffw 4y ago
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect dates back to the 19th century. Section 202(a)(1) is pretty explicit that the law does not limit the pollutants under the low to those known to the legislative body[1]: > The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Edit: In other words: even if we could show that Congress was unaware of CO2's effect on the environment, it simply doesn't matter. The Act empowers the EPA to identify and address the pollutants. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7521 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7521
oliwarner 4y ago
Can't wait to see your face when you read what the Second Amendment allows.
- taylodl 4y ago
  You can pry my flint locked muzzle loader out of my cold dead hands! :)

gnulinux 4y ago

> Given that the danger of CO2 was completely unknown in 1963 This is a bizarre claim! From https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ > In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth's atmosphere to global warming. Also read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_sc...

mlindner 4y ago
Rather than "completely" maybe it would have been more correct to say "widely". The idea of global warming basically started in the late 60s with a very few scientists talking about it. Rediscovering old previously discredited scientific papers from the late 19th and early 20th century doesn't make it date all the way back to then.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  This simply misses the point. Very few laws are restricted to the best science of their day: nearly all allow for administrative interpretation so that the US Government can apply the law without having to relitigate its essential qualities. The CAA empowers the EPA to identify pollutants, and that's what the EPA has (correctly!) done. Whether or not the scientific consensus from the 1960s agrees is immaterial.
  - Jcowell 4y ago
    > This simply misses the point. Very few laws are restricted to the best science of their day: nearly all allow for administrative interpretation so that the US Government can apply the law without having to relitigate its essential qualities. Precisely, if it was the case then arms of the second amendment wouldn’t apply to modern day firearms.
    - _uy6i 4y ago
      Maybe, or one could argue that the second amendment applies to the most modern and capable arms of the day e.g. the musket of the time = an assault rifle today Don’t want to talk guns, but want to illustrate the challenges of making such claims
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Why would the Second Amendment be interpreted in that way and the CAA not be allowed similar breadth in interpreting what is a pollutant? The latter is actually explicit in this regard; the former has been constructed through judicial interpretation.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
No one was talking about CO2 in 1963 other than a few scientists. It didn't reach critical mass until the late 80s. The law was written for known pollutants at the time. Congress is just going to have to add to the powers of the EPA, it's as simple as that.

pavlov 4y ago

Did the text of the Clean Air Act explicitly say it applies only to pollutants known in 1963? If laws can’t be interpreted to account for new circumstances, then it must be legal to pay to have someone killed as long as you use Bitcoin — after all the law didn’t specifically ban the use of Bitcoin.

woodruffw 4y ago

Our understanding of the greenhouse effect dates back to the 19th century. Section 202(a)(1) is pretty explicit that the law does not limit the pollutants under the low to those known to the legislative body[1]: > The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Edit: In other words: even if we could show that Congress was unaware of CO2's effect on the environment, it simply doesn't matter. The Act empowers the EPA to identify and address the pollutants. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7521 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7521

oliwarner 4y ago

Can't wait to see your face when you read what the Second Amendment allows.

taylodl 4y ago
You can pry my flint locked muzzle loader out of my cold dead hands! :)