3 ms·

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

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.

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.