6 ms·

This endless jockeying to try to get the courts to allow the executive branch to have more power is ridiculous and dangerous. If Congress wants the EPA to regu

This endless jockeying to try to get the courts to allow the executive branch to have more power is ridiculous and dangerous. If Congress wants the EPA to regulate CO2 they should just pass that as a law. The reticence to act on this is bananas. Congress has all the power here -- they can give the EPA discretion or specify a mandate for how they handle CO2.

jvanderbot 2y ago
They did pass it as law, called the 1970 clean air act.
- seizethecheese 2y ago
  This is clearly under dispute and not a fact that can be stated so cleanly . The article itself makes it clear that the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that this is not the case.h
  - mbStavola 2y ago
    Seemed to be the case for 50+ years.
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - RangerScience 2y ago
      Check out the book “Legal Systems Very Different From Our Own” for the millennia-old tradition that is “finding a way to interpret a holy text according to your politics”
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - burkaman 2y ago
    It is understandably confusing, because the Supreme Court also ruled that it is the case in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA. > greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA's capacious definition of air pollutant - United States Supreme Court
    - throw10920 2y ago
      Wikipedia is not a citation.
  - consteval 2y ago
    This current supreme court is addicted to rolling back anything and everything that is opposed to a conservative position. The clean air act was already ruled to include greenhouse gasses. It's not under dispute, this court just disputes it because they have the power and ultimately are playing an end game of fostering a conservative government, i.e. they have long term political interests.
- andrewla 2y ago
  I mean, the 1970 act did spell out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2. But they did not authorize the way that the EPA was setting standards for gas-fired power plants. The technicalities here run deep, but the fact that some academics at Yale think that it should be allowed tells us nothing -- already, three of the most brilliant legal minds in the country have already publicly dissented from the Supreme Court's opinion on the subject. In the face of the ambiguity, the bias should be for the legislature to act to correct the ambiguity. There is no constitutional issue at stake, just a question of what the act authorized. Congress can just deal with this. EDIT: This is incorrect; as pointed out below, the 1970 Act did not mention greenhouse gases or CO2 specifically. As of the 2022 amendment to the act there are several explict areas where greenhouse gases are specifically mentioned.
  - earthboundkid 2y ago
    If there's ambiguity, the Supreme Court should defer to the executive and let Congress pass a new law if they disagree. It doesn't make sense for the tie to go to inaction. We elect Presidents exactly so they can steer the executive in the direction we like! Requiring all three branches to agree (Congress passes the law, Executive actually does it, Court says it's okay) is a recipe for national paralysis.
    - nradov 2y ago
      That is just completely wrong and you have misunderstood why we elect Presidents. Your opinion isn't supported by anything in the Constitution.
      - earthboundkid 2y ago
        The Constitution does not mention judicial review at all. Since it's ambiguous, it must be unconstitutional; therefore the Supreme Court must stop doing it. This is the same logic.
    - mikestew 2y ago
      How does the concept of “checks and balances” fit into your view? I ask because, as sibling commenter points out, that’s just not how the Constitution says it works.
hindsightbias 2y ago
Since Chevron is out, the courts will have rule on every footnote of every regulation. But since both sides are the same, I'm sure Congress will act with all due diligence.
jandrese 2y ago
Handing the power over to the dysfunctional Congress is exactly how the oil and gas industry intends to win. They own enough congressmen to make sure any such legislation never makes it out of committee.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > They own enough congressmen to make sure any such legislation never makes it out of committee. Campaign donations are a powerful motivator but they lose to real public pressure every time. The public is not very interested in this problem because it's incredibly abstract and none of the proposed solutions seem designed to actually solve it without forcing a religious level of austerity on them.
  - gman83 2y ago
    This definitely used to be the case, but since Citizens United those donations have absolutely exploded, and combine that with the gerrymandering of districts into very safe districts, public pressure might no longer be sufficient to sway those politicians, the jury is still out on that. Most Americans do actually want action on climate change: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > but since Citizens United those donations have absolutely exploded That case has implications respecting third party advertising but it has no bearing on direct campaign contributions to candidates. > combine that with the gerrymandering of districts into very safe districts The purpose of this gerrymandering is to reduce the total voter turnout. Most senators get elected with less than half the voting population turning out, many as little as 25%. Which means currently only 1/8 of your population needs to vote for you to win. It's really a vulnerability they've created for themselves, but you have to have the confidence to run as a third party candidate in order to take advantage of this. This is a uniparty game that strengthens the false dichotomy and not really material for our purposes here. > public pressure might no longer be sufficient to sway those politicians, the jury is still out on that. Is there a case where significant public pressure has failed? Saying "voters want action on climate change" is meaningless. Of course they do. Who actually _wants_ to ruin the planet or destroy their health? Nobody. How do we do this? Which metrics do we use? Who is responsible for implementation? What impacts will this have on average citizens? These are the questions that need answering, and unfortunately, there's too much actual division on these issues to foment a clear _federal_ plan forward let alone anything that would be effective or enforced world wide.
spencerflem 2y ago
[flagged]
immibis 2y ago
But... they did pass that law. It was the Clean Air Act.
- spencerflem 2y ago
  Yeah, and the article explains it too. I hate tech people sometimes

jvanderbot 2y ago

They did pass it as law, called the 1970 clean air act.

seizethecheese 2y ago
This is clearly under dispute and not a fact that can be stated so cleanly . The article itself makes it clear that the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that this is not the case.h
- mbStavola 2y ago
  Seemed to be the case for 50+ years.
- spencerflem 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - RangerScience 2y ago
    Check out the book “Legal Systems Very Different From Our Own” for the millennia-old tradition that is “finding a way to interpret a holy text according to your politics”
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- burkaman 2y ago
  It is understandably confusing, because the Supreme Court also ruled that it is the case in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA. > greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA's capacious definition of air pollutant - United States Supreme Court
  - throw10920 2y ago
    Wikipedia is not a citation.
- consteval 2y ago
  This current supreme court is addicted to rolling back anything and everything that is opposed to a conservative position. The clean air act was already ruled to include greenhouse gasses. It's not under dispute, this court just disputes it because they have the power and ultimately are playing an end game of fostering a conservative government, i.e. they have long term political interests.
andrewla 2y ago
I mean, the 1970 act did spell out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2. But they did not authorize the way that the EPA was setting standards for gas-fired power plants. The technicalities here run deep, but the fact that some academics at Yale think that it should be allowed tells us nothing -- already, three of the most brilliant legal minds in the country have already publicly dissented from the Supreme Court's opinion on the subject. In the face of the ambiguity, the bias should be for the legislature to act to correct the ambiguity. There is no constitutional issue at stake, just a question of what the act authorized. Congress can just deal with this. EDIT: This is incorrect; as pointed out below, the 1970 Act did not mention greenhouse gases or CO2 specifically. As of the 2022 amendment to the act there are several explict areas where greenhouse gases are specifically mentioned.
- earthboundkid 2y ago
  If there's ambiguity, the Supreme Court should defer to the executive and let Congress pass a new law if they disagree. It doesn't make sense for the tie to go to inaction. We elect Presidents exactly so they can steer the executive in the direction we like! Requiring all three branches to agree (Congress passes the law, Executive actually does it, Court says it's okay) is a recipe for national paralysis.
  - nradov 2y ago
    That is just completely wrong and you have misunderstood why we elect Presidents. Your opinion isn't supported by anything in the Constitution.
    - earthboundkid 2y ago
      The Constitution does not mention judicial review at all. Since it's ambiguous, it must be unconstitutional; therefore the Supreme Court must stop doing it. This is the same logic.
  - mikestew 2y ago
    How does the concept of “checks and balances” fit into your view? I ask because, as sibling commenter points out, that’s just not how the Constitution says it works.

hindsightbias 2y ago

Since Chevron is out, the courts will have rule on every footnote of every regulation. But since both sides are the same, I'm sure Congress will act with all due diligence.

jandrese 2y ago

Handing the power over to the dysfunctional Congress is exactly how the oil and gas industry intends to win. They own enough congressmen to make sure any such legislation never makes it out of committee.

akira2501 2y ago
> They own enough congressmen to make sure any such legislation never makes it out of committee. Campaign donations are a powerful motivator but they lose to real public pressure every time. The public is not very interested in this problem because it's incredibly abstract and none of the proposed solutions seem designed to actually solve it without forcing a religious level of austerity on them.
- gman83 2y ago
  This definitely used to be the case, but since Citizens United those donations have absolutely exploded, and combine that with the gerrymandering of districts into very safe districts, public pressure might no longer be sufficient to sway those politicians, the jury is still out on that. Most Americans do actually want action on climate change: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > but since Citizens United those donations have absolutely exploded That case has implications respecting third party advertising but it has no bearing on direct campaign contributions to candidates. > combine that with the gerrymandering of districts into very safe districts The purpose of this gerrymandering is to reduce the total voter turnout. Most senators get elected with less than half the voting population turning out, many as little as 25%. Which means currently only 1/8 of your population needs to vote for you to win. It's really a vulnerability they've created for themselves, but you have to have the confidence to run as a third party candidate in order to take advantage of this. This is a uniparty game that strengthens the false dichotomy and not really material for our purposes here. > public pressure might no longer be sufficient to sway those politicians, the jury is still out on that. Is there a case where significant public pressure has failed? Saying "voters want action on climate change" is meaningless. Of course they do. Who actually _wants_ to ruin the planet or destroy their health? Nobody. How do we do this? Which metrics do we use? Who is responsible for implementation? What impacts will this have on average citizens? These are the questions that need answering, and unfortunately, there's too much actual division on these issues to foment a clear _federal_ plan forward let alone anything that would be effective or enforced world wide.

spencerflem 2y ago

[flagged]

immibis 2y ago

But... they did pass that law. It was the Clean Air Act.

spencerflem 2y ago
Yeah, and the article explains it too. I hate tech people sometimes