5 ms·

I would also add long term. Often one dangerous substance is replaced with another.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
And it doesn't help that our only practical lever for improvement was recently eliminated by SCOTUS. Under the Chevron Doctrine, Congress could pass a law that broadly bans all chemicals like these and then the agencies could react to new studies like this and push out new rules as we learn more and as companies attempt workarounds. But with that tool gone, there's basically no chance of this ever getting fixed. Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. Good luck with that!
- dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
  >Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. This speak of stupidity/incompetence or most likely corruption, the average ignorant populace is generally to blame, their priorities are never a healthy environment ( unless it's for virtue signalling). There is no hope.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  What you're describing would still be 100% possible. Chevron deference specifically applied when agencies tried to expand powers in ways that were not reasonably within their mandate. For a very high profile recent example when the CDC tried to expand the expired COVID related eviction moratorium, they did so under a section of the public health services act that granted them the power to carry out measures "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases." Claiming that banning evictions falls under there is a rather 'creative' interpretation, but it was initially allowed due to Chevon deference where judges were obligated to defer to the interpretations of regulatory agencies. If an agency is tasked with the 'prohibition of plastics, or related compounds, deemed reasonably likely to be harmful' then they would be fully capable of doing just that. With Chevron Deference they probably could then expand that mandate to then do something like claim regulatory authority over beaches owing to prohibited plastic waste washing ashore, but without it that would probably require a new law since that's clearly an unintended expansion of power.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    > Chevron deference specifically applied when agencies tried to expand powers in ways that were not reasonably within their mandate Not true. And I mean literally definitionally not true. Chevron deference only applies (definitionally) when the agency's interpretation is reasonable. With Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenged a rule, the court applied a two part test: Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2. Part 2. Is the agency's interpretation of the legislation reasonable? If yes: the agency's rule wins. If no: the rule is bad. Without Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenges a rule, it works this way: Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2. Part 2. What's the court's opinion on the matter? That's the rule for this particular instance of the problem, with effectively zero binding authority on other instances of similar problems (e.g. a case on Compound x1 will have no bearing, a priori, on a virtually identical Compound x1.1)
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      My use of "reasonable" might have made the matter confusing. I think "not reasonably within their mandate" and could be argued "to be reasonably within their mandate" are two very different things, but this is made much cleaner if I simply change reasonably to clearly. Without Chevron, regulators have to stay within the bounds of the mandate clearly legally granted to them by Congress. With Chevron, they could step far beyond those bounds, so long as there was a "reasonable" argument for it. Again the example with the CDC makes this very clear. A mandate enabling them to carry out actions "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases" like testing, inspections, quarantines, and so forth does not clearly (or even reasonably) grant them the right to also prevent evictions. But they could create a "reasonable" argument that, though ambiguous, it should. With Chevron this ambiguity was up to the regulator to decide themselves. Without Chevron, it's up to the judiciary to decide (if the regulator is sued). So circling back to the point here - the end of Chevron has absolutely 0 impact on the ability of a regulator under the clear mandate to 'ban unsafe plastics' from being able to 'ban unsafe plastics.'
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

And it doesn't help that our only practical lever for improvement was recently eliminated by SCOTUS. Under the Chevron Doctrine, Congress could pass a law that broadly bans all chemicals like these and then the agencies could react to new studies like this and push out new rules as we learn more and as companies attempt workarounds. But with that tool gone, there's basically no chance of this ever getting fixed. Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. Good luck with that!

dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
>Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. This speak of stupidity/incompetence or most likely corruption, the average ignorant populace is generally to blame, their priorities are never a healthy environment ( unless it's for virtue signalling). There is no hope.
somenameforme 1y ago
What you're describing would still be 100% possible. Chevron deference specifically applied when agencies tried to expand powers in ways that were not reasonably within their mandate. For a very high profile recent example when the CDC tried to expand the expired COVID related eviction moratorium, they did so under a section of the public health services act that granted them the power to carry out measures "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases." Claiming that banning evictions falls under there is a rather 'creative' interpretation, but it was initially allowed due to Chevon deference where judges were obligated to defer to the interpretations of regulatory agencies. If an agency is tasked with the 'prohibition of plastics, or related compounds, deemed reasonably likely to be harmful' then they would be fully capable of doing just that. With Chevron Deference they probably could then expand that mandate to then do something like claim regulatory authority over beaches owing to prohibited plastic waste washing ashore, but without it that would probably require a new law since that's clearly an unintended expansion of power.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  > Chevron deference specifically applied when agencies tried to expand powers in ways that were not reasonably within their mandate Not true. And I mean literally definitionally not true. Chevron deference only applies (definitionally) when the agency's interpretation is reasonable. With Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenged a rule, the court applied a two part test: Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2. Part 2. Is the agency's interpretation of the legislation reasonable? If yes: the agency's rule wins. If no: the rule is bad. Without Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenges a rule, it works this way: Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2. Part 2. What's the court's opinion on the matter? That's the rule for this particular instance of the problem, with effectively zero binding authority on other instances of similar problems (e.g. a case on Compound x1 will have no bearing, a priori, on a virtually identical Compound x1.1)
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    My use of "reasonable" might have made the matter confusing. I think "not reasonably within their mandate" and could be argued "to be reasonably within their mandate" are two very different things, but this is made much cleaner if I simply change reasonably to clearly. Without Chevron, regulators have to stay within the bounds of the mandate clearly legally granted to them by Congress. With Chevron, they could step far beyond those bounds, so long as there was a "reasonable" argument for it. Again the example with the CDC makes this very clear. A mandate enabling them to carry out actions "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases" like testing, inspections, quarantines, and so forth does not clearly (or even reasonably) grant them the right to also prevent evictions. But they could create a "reasonable" argument that, though ambiguous, it should. With Chevron this ambiguity was up to the regulator to decide themselves. Without Chevron, it's up to the judiciary to decide (if the regulator is sued). So circling back to the point here - the end of Chevron has absolutely 0 impact on the ability of a regulator under the clear mandate to 'ban unsafe plastics' from being able to 'ban unsafe plastics.'

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]