4 ms·
You 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
by pavlov 4y ago
You 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.