4 ms·

There is no regulation proposed, or method proposed, to substantively reduce how much co2 is emitted when you burn fossil fuels for power. That is why this prob

There is no regulation proposed, or method proposed, to substantively reduce how much co2 is emitted when you burn fossil fuels for power. That is why this problem is so hard. You can't put a filter in place like you can for heavy metals or particulates. There is no solution other than switching to nuclear/solar/wind/etc

UncleMeat 3y ago
And those solutions can be enforced by regulation. But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional.
- busterarm 3y ago
  This assumes that governments will trend towards more stability and the ability to enforce this regulation. The latter depends on alternative energy costs trending downward and competing for viability on a larger scale. None of these things are necessarily true. In fact from the government stability perspective we've been in an unparalleled period of peace and stability that looks incredibly shaky into the near future. Any climate commitments go completely out the window when conflict breaks out between nations.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional. The argument wasn't that they're unconstitutional, it's that they weren't authorized by Congress. To have the law you have to actually pass the law.
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality. But the argument was bullshit. Major Questions Doctrine just exists to say "nu uh, that authorization you have from Congress doesn't count" when it is politically expedient. The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality. It wasn't that either. It was the courts saying that the law Congress passed didn't clearly authorize the EPA to do this, so if Congress wants it they need to say so unambiguously. Notably this means that to change it doesn't require a constitutional amendment but only an ordinary law, which is not what is generally meant by "unconstitutional". > The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. And then the courts interpret it and if Congress doesn't like their interpretation they can pass a new law which is more specific. > Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things. There is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress even has delegation authority.
      - UncleMeat 3y ago
        "Is unconstitutional" does not mean "would require a constitutional amendment to exist." Yes, Congress can pass a new law. That doesn't make the supreme court's decision absolutely fucking rank idiocy based entirely in political goals covered in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence. Yes, Gorsuch thinks that Congress can't delegate at all and basically all execute agencies should be destroyed. We know. He'll ride out climate change in a mansion.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > "Is unconstitutional" does not mean "would require a constitutional amendment to exist." It kind of does. Your version would make any interpretation of the law a constitutional question. The plaintiff in a civil case claims they're entitled to damages but the court found their argument unconstitutional because it's Congress and not plaintiffs who make the law? > That doesn't make the supreme court's decision absolutely fucking rank idiocy based entirely in political goals covered in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence. It feels pretty consistent with a "separation of powers" interpretation of how laws get made. Do you really think they come to a different result if it was Trump's EPA saying they had to replace renewables with "reliable" generation methods over whatever pretext? And wouldn't that be the result you want? > Yes, Gorsuch thinks that Congress can't delegate at all and basically all execute agencies should be destroyed. We know. He'll ride out climate change in a mansion. They could exist without making laws. Agency drafts a bill, proposes it to Congress, Congress votes on it. It's democratic. It seems like people have forgotten how to compromise. You want a climate change bill, Republicans don't. Republicans want school vouchers, or to reduce the number of federal employees, or immigration reform, or lower taxes. You give them something they want, you get something you want.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  This is not an Oil company issue though, this is a voter issue. If voters were concerned about global warming and wanted everything electric they would vote that way. Instead it appears that only about half want it or at least vote in a way that supports it. Others may support it as well but see other issues as more important and vote accordingly. Until the voting public actually acts like this is a major deal, it will be business as usual.

UncleMeat 3y ago

And those solutions can be enforced by regulation. But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional.

busterarm 3y ago
This assumes that governments will trend towards more stability and the ability to enforce this regulation. The latter depends on alternative energy costs trending downward and competing for viability on a larger scale. None of these things are necessarily true. In fact from the government stability perspective we've been in an unparalleled period of peace and stability that looks incredibly shaky into the near future. Any climate commitments go completely out the window when conflict breaks out between nations.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional. The argument wasn't that they're unconstitutional, it's that they weren't authorized by Congress. To have the law you have to actually pass the law.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality. But the argument was bullshit. Major Questions Doctrine just exists to say "nu uh, that authorization you have from Congress doesn't count" when it is politically expedient. The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality. It wasn't that either. It was the courts saying that the law Congress passed didn't clearly authorize the EPA to do this, so if Congress wants it they need to say so unambiguously. Notably this means that to change it doesn't require a constitutional amendment but only an ordinary law, which is not what is generally meant by "unconstitutional". > The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. And then the courts interpret it and if Congress doesn't like their interpretation they can pass a new law which is more specific. > Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things. There is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress even has delegation authority.
    - UncleMeat 3y ago
      "Is unconstitutional" does not mean "would require a constitutional amendment to exist." Yes, Congress can pass a new law. That doesn't make the supreme court's decision absolutely fucking rank idiocy based entirely in political goals covered in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence. Yes, Gorsuch thinks that Congress can't delegate at all and basically all execute agencies should be destroyed. We know. He'll ride out climate change in a mansion.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > "Is unconstitutional" does not mean "would require a constitutional amendment to exist." It kind of does. Your version would make any interpretation of the law a constitutional question. The plaintiff in a civil case claims they're entitled to damages but the court found their argument unconstitutional because it's Congress and not plaintiffs who make the law? > That doesn't make the supreme court's decision absolutely fucking rank idiocy based entirely in political goals covered in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence. It feels pretty consistent with a "separation of powers" interpretation of how laws get made. Do you really think they come to a different result if it was Trump's EPA saying they had to replace renewables with "reliable" generation methods over whatever pretext? And wouldn't that be the result you want? > Yes, Gorsuch thinks that Congress can't delegate at all and basically all execute agencies should be destroyed. We know. He'll ride out climate change in a mansion. They could exist without making laws. Agency drafts a bill, proposes it to Congress, Congress votes on it. It's democratic. It seems like people have forgotten how to compromise. You want a climate change bill, Republicans don't. Republicans want school vouchers, or to reduce the number of federal employees, or immigration reform, or lower taxes. You give them something they want, you get something you want.
wonderwonder 3y ago
This is not an Oil company issue though, this is a voter issue. If voters were concerned about global warming and wanted everything electric they would vote that way. Instead it appears that only about half want it or at least vote in a way that supports it. Others may support it as well but see other issues as more important and vote accordingly. Until the voting public actually acts like this is a major deal, it will be business as usual.