4 ms·

This is definitely in the EPA's purview to regulate and monitor better. I don't believe the framing at all that this is industry standard venting practices, the

This is definitely in the EPA's purview to regulate and monitor better. I don't believe the framing at all that this is industry standard venting practices, the excess methane is from leaks. I would bet anything that as we get higher resolution satellite monitoring, most of the excess methane will come from a few "super-leakers" who haven't kept up on their maintenance.

nerdponx 3y ago
And before anyone gets all upset about the Commerce Clause and the boundary of the authority of the EPA: air quality does not respect state boundaries, and is therefore a matter of interstate commerce.
- specialist 3y ago
  As you know, every single progressive effort begets a much larger reactionary effort to undo it. The EPA in particular has been under continuous assault. Apparently a liveable planet is fractionally less profitable for a handful of incumbents, which is intolerable. When tortured rationalizations (perverting the commerce clause, equal protection, precedent, the actual unambiguous language and stated intent of any given law, and simple logic) prive insufficient, our reactionary SCOTUS will divine nonsensical plot devices like the "major questions doctrine" to get their predetermined outcome.
  - andrekandre 3y ago
    > As you know, every single progressive effort begets a much larger reactionary effort to undo it. so whats the better solution?
    - ip26 3y ago
      Figure out how to make it common sense, if possible. E.g. spending bills tend to fail… except when they obviously save more money than they spend on net.
    - specialist 3y ago
      First accept reality: yes, this is really happening (despite corporate media concern trolling, err, denials from op-eds and pundits); there is no "winning", nothing is ever settled; we must always defend democracy. Next step is work towards a multi-racial majoritarian democracy. It took generations and billions in dark money to unwind the New Deal, Great Society, environmentalism, etc. Hopefully getting back on track won't take quite so long.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Unless you are yourself a majority of the Supreme Court, I don't see how you can make such a flat claim. The plain language of the law and the intent if the people who enacted it notwithstanding, the Supreme Court could just come out and say they can't regulate this.

nerdponx 3y ago

And before anyone gets all upset about the Commerce Clause and the boundary of the authority of the EPA: air quality does not respect state boundaries, and is therefore a matter of interstate commerce.

specialist 3y ago
As you know, every single progressive effort begets a much larger reactionary effort to undo it. The EPA in particular has been under continuous assault. Apparently a liveable planet is fractionally less profitable for a handful of incumbents, which is intolerable. When tortured rationalizations (perverting the commerce clause, equal protection, precedent, the actual unambiguous language and stated intent of any given law, and simple logic) prive insufficient, our reactionary SCOTUS will divine nonsensical plot devices like the "major questions doctrine" to get their predetermined outcome.
- andrekandre 3y ago
  > As you know, every single progressive effort begets a much larger reactionary effort to undo it. so whats the better solution?
  - ip26 3y ago
    Figure out how to make it common sense, if possible. E.g. spending bills tend to fail… except when they obviously save more money than they spend on net.
  - specialist 3y ago
    First accept reality: yes, this is really happening (despite corporate media concern trolling, err, denials from op-eds and pundits); there is no "winning", nothing is ever settled; we must always defend democracy. Next step is work towards a multi-racial majoritarian democracy. It took generations and billions in dark money to unwind the New Deal, Great Society, environmentalism, etc. Hopefully getting back on track won't take quite so long.
jeffbee 3y ago
Unless you are yourself a majority of the Supreme Court, I don't see how you can make such a flat claim. The plain language of the law and the intent if the people who enacted it notwithstanding, the Supreme Court could just come out and say they can't regulate this.