3 ms·

>> I mean, the 1970 act did spell out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2. The text of the 19

>> I mean, the 1970 act did spell out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2. The text of the 1970 Clean Air Act is at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/91/hr17255/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/91/hr17255/text, in which places does the text specifically call out the authority of the EPA to regulate CO2? I do not see the words "CO2" or "carbon dioxide" in the text. I see references to "carbon monoxide" and "hydrocarbons" neither of which refer to CO2.

burkaman 2y ago
Read section 108, which explicitly says the EPA administrator has the authority to decide what is considered a pollutant. The Supreme Court held that CO2 should be considered a pollutant under this authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA. You may also be interested in the 2022 amendments to the Clean Air Act passed by Congress, which explicitly enumerate greenhouse gases as substances to be regulated by the EPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States%29#2022_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States....
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  >> Read section 108 That does not contain wording "including specifically CO2", which was the assertion I responded to. >> You may also be interested in the 2022 amendments No, I was interested in the original assertion that the 1970 Clean Air Act "spell[ed] out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2".
  - consteval 2y ago
    Laws are not based off the specific wording, they're based off the spirit. At least in the US. The clean air act says the EPA can determine what is/is not a pollutant based off whether it can harm the public. That, to me, means the law covers CO2. I don't understand how you can interpret it otherwise.
    - andrewla 2y ago
      As the author of the post they were replying to, I can say definitively that this is a refutation of what I was posting, and you are arguing with the wind. I made a claim about specific wording which was correctly pointed out to be incorrect. There was no claim made about the "spirit" on either side or interpretation. I made a factually incorrect claim that was pointed out to be factually incorrect; I don't know why you are continuing to argue.
- jaybrendansmith 2y ago
  So what exactly do we do when a Supreme Court justice willfully misreads clear and established law and precedent set by congress? Can we impeach them? IANAL, but that statue is plain english. I do not need an interpreter. Neither should any of you.
vel0city 2y ago
> The Administrator shall, within 90 days after December 31, 1970, publish (and from time to time thereafter shall revise) a list of categories of stationary sources. He shall include a category of sources in such list if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The argument is CO2 emissions lead to continued climate change which unless you think climate change is a hoax made by the Chinese to kill US manufacturing it is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

burkaman 2y ago

Read section 108, which explicitly says the EPA administrator has the authority to decide what is considered a pollutant. The Supreme Court held that CO2 should be considered a pollutant under this authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA. You may also be interested in the 2022 amendments to the Clean Air Act passed by Congress, which explicitly enumerate greenhouse gases as substances to be regulated by the EPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States%29#2022_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States....

rufus_foreman 2y ago
>> Read section 108 That does not contain wording "including specifically CO2", which was the assertion I responded to. >> You may also be interested in the 2022 amendments No, I was interested in the original assertion that the 1970 Clean Air Act "spell[ed] out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2".
- consteval 2y ago
  Laws are not based off the specific wording, they're based off the spirit. At least in the US. The clean air act says the EPA can determine what is/is not a pollutant based off whether it can harm the public. That, to me, means the law covers CO2. I don't understand how you can interpret it otherwise.
  - andrewla 2y ago
    As the author of the post they were replying to, I can say definitively that this is a refutation of what I was posting, and you are arguing with the wind. I made a claim about specific wording which was correctly pointed out to be incorrect. There was no claim made about the "spirit" on either side or interpretation. I made a factually incorrect claim that was pointed out to be factually incorrect; I don't know why you are continuing to argue.
jaybrendansmith 2y ago
So what exactly do we do when a Supreme Court justice willfully misreads clear and established law and precedent set by congress? Can we impeach them? IANAL, but that statue is plain english. I do not need an interpreter. Neither should any of you.

vel0city 2y ago

> The Administrator shall, within 90 days after December 31, 1970, publish (and from time to time thereafter shall revise) a list of categories of stationary sources. He shall include a category of sources in such list if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The argument is CO2 emissions lead to continued climate change which unless you think climate change is a hoax made by the Chinese to kill US manufacturing it is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.