3 ms·

The dissenting justices argue that congress already voted to give EPA the mandate to address air pollution. The majority opinion is that “climate change” is a d

by d--b 4y ago

The dissenting justices argue that congress already voted to give EPA the mandate to address air pollution. The majority opinion is that “climate change” is a different issue than “air pollution”. For my part, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that CO2 emissions aren’t covered by the clean air act. And since the decision clearly follows the conservative agenda, it’s hard to not see it as a politically-driven decision.

mlindner 4y ago
Firstly, I agree global warming is happening, and that it's caused by humans, and that we should be working to stop it. However, CO2 emissions are not pollutants in the normal sense of the term. They do not directly harm human health by their existence in the environment.
- myownpetard 4y ago
  But the second order negative effects have been demonstrated with an incredible amount of scientific rigor. This is like saying we shouldn't ban an industrial chemical that is destroying US wheat production but does not directly impact human health.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > They do not directly harm human health by their existence in the environment. This is "the donkey hung the man, not the executor yoking the donkey" logic. We have overwhelming evidence that CO2 emissions are a primary efficient cause for climate change, which we have overwhelming reason to believe will directly harm the lives and welfare of billions. It doesn't matter that we won't die of CO2 asphyxiation itself, because neither the CAA nor common sense establishes that standard.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    The parent statement is not that CO2 is harmless, but that it is not a pollutant. Not everything that leads to harm is pollution.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      > Not everything that leads to harm is pollution. Of course not. But things that come out of tailpipes and smokestacks are frequently pollutants, and it staggers the mind to think of a sense in which CO2 does not meet even the "limited" sense of the word under the CAA (i.e., a sense strictly limited to motor vehicles.)

by d--b 4y ago

mlindner 4y ago

Firstly, I agree global warming is happening, and that it's caused by humans, and that we should be working to stop it. However, CO2 emissions are not pollutants in the normal sense of the term. They do not directly harm human health by their existence in the environment.

myownpetard 4y ago
But the second order negative effects have been demonstrated with an incredible amount of scientific rigor. This is like saying we shouldn't ban an industrial chemical that is destroying US wheat production but does not directly impact human health.
woodruffw 4y ago
> They do not directly harm human health by their existence in the environment. This is "the donkey hung the man, not the executor yoking the donkey" logic. We have overwhelming evidence that CO2 emissions are a primary efficient cause for climate change, which we have overwhelming reason to believe will directly harm the lives and welfare of billions. It doesn't matter that we won't die of CO2 asphyxiation itself, because neither the CAA nor common sense establishes that standard.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  The parent statement is not that CO2 is harmless, but that it is not a pollutant. Not everything that leads to harm is pollution.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > Not everything that leads to harm is pollution. Of course not. But things that come out of tailpipes and smokestacks are frequently pollutants, and it staggers the mind to think of a sense in which CO2 does not meet even the "limited" sense of the word under the CAA (i.e., a sense strictly limited to motor vehicles.)