The Climate thread

[hookem2010 2700]

Fucking rich people... who's looking forward to the start of this summer being standard?!? I, for one, enjoy not being able to comfortably leave the house after 9 AM for 4 months a year.

[Biff Tannen 46175]

21 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/corporate-jets-to-escape-eu-s-green-aviation-fuel-tax-1.4618545
 

Corporate jets to escape EU’s ‘green’ aviation fuel tax

Bullshit if it went through, but that article is from July 2021 and it was a draft proposal. Any updates?

[Biff Tannen 46175]

21 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/corporate-jets-to-escape-eu-s-green-aviation-fuel-tax-1.4618545
 

Corporate jets to escape EU’s ‘green’ aviation fuel tax

Bullshit if it went through, but that article is from July 2021 and it was a draft proposal. Any updates?

[WhatTheBuck 28932]

Private jets are a drop in the bucket in all the ways we’re pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That’s just a distraction. We need to switch to green energy and kill the fossil fuel industry. That’s the story. We need to accelerate the effort. Until we succeed, fossil fuels will still be necessary. But if you work in the fossil fuel industry, you need to be out of a job ASAP. (Or making a lot less because we’ll still need it to make fertilizer.)

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But if you work in the fossil fuel industry, you need to be out of a job ASAP. (Or making a lot less because we’ll still need it to make fertilizer.)

Nah,fuckthat.gif

[Neonmoon 38130]

The biggest contributor to greenhouse gases is cars

We need less ICB cars and more EV cars, and we need more trains. 

 

[elfenix 34754]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But if you work in the fossil fuel industry, you need to be out of a job ASAP

we're going to have to buy them out.  no one is going to just hand over their livelihood.   

[hookem2010 2700]

Not directly climate-related I guess, but environmental, Tanzania is reportedly violently evicting the Maasai people off their ancestral lands to create a game reserve for the UAE royal family. Because the thing rich assholes need is another place to shoot big animals in order to convince themselves and others that they don't actually have tiny dicks.

[Fudge Nuggets 19464]

5 minutes ago, hookem2010 said:

Not directly climate-related I guess, but environmental, Tanzania is reportedly violently evicting the Maasai people off their ancestral lands to create a game reserve for the UAE royal family. Because the thing rich assholes need is another place to shoot big animals in order to convince themselves and others that they don't actually have tiny dicks.

Any way we can send about 50,000 land mines to those people to leave behind on their way out?

[hookem2010 2700]

Downplaying the slave trade, letting O&G lobbyists dictate climate discussion. How will Texas fuck up grade school textbooks next? 

[WhatTheBuck 28932]

On 6/16/2022 at 2:46 PM, hookem2010 said:

Downplaying the slave trade, letting O&G lobbyists dictate climate discussion. How will Texas fuck up grade school textbooks next? 

Have they banned the teaching of evolutionary biology yet?

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

Also they’re closing more nuclear plants soon. Nonsensical. 

[hookem2010 2700]

Michael Shellenberger, the guy who thinks global warming is actually a good thing. Cool! 

[brakeman 28754]

Tomorrow, not quite so hot, but with "wind heat".

[Fletch 5817]

On 6/12/2022 at 10:41 AM, fattyflattie said:

Nah,fuckthat.gif

Yeah! Fuck the planet, I want my money!!!! Asshole 

[gmr548 16702]

Yeah! Fuck the planet, I want my money!!!! Asshole 

The planet will be fine. It’s been through much worse.

Modern human civilization, maybe not so much.

[Dahobbs 18335]

On 6/19/2022 at 1:05 PM, Immaculate Vibes said:

Also they’re closing more nuclear plants soon. Nonsensical. 

Try actually reading the article. This isn't a renewable problem. It is about reducing the use of natural gas for electricity generation so that it can be preserved for heating (majority of German homes use gas for heating). And I'm not quite sure where the blackouts come in as that doesn't appear to be addressed in the article. I don't know how you read that article and get from it that renewables are the problem. I mean, if your job is misinformation I totally get it, but outside of that I don't. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Dahobbs

[elfenix 34754]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

if your job is misinformation

[EuroHorn 3295]

On 6/12/2022 at 10:35 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Private jets are a drop in the bucket in all the ways we’re pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That’s just a distraction. We need to switch to green energy and kill the fossil fuel industry. That’s the story. We need to accelerate the effort. Until we succeed, fossil fuels will still be necessary. But if you work in the fossil fuel industry, you need to be out of a job ASAP. (Or making a lot less because we’ll still need it to make fertilizer*****.)

*****

 partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:

Solvents	Diesel fuel	Motor Oil	Bearing Grease
Ink	Floor Wax	Ballpoint Pens	Football Cleats
Upholstery	Sweaters	Boats	Insecticides
Bicycle Tires	Sports Car Bodies	Nail Polish	Fishing lures
Dresses	Tires	Golf Bags	Perfumes
Cassettes	Dishwasher parts	Tool Boxes	Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet	Caulking	Petroleum Jelly	Transparent Tape
CD Player	Faucet Washers	Antiseptics	Clothesline
Curtains	Food Preservatives	Basketballs	Soap
Vitamin Capsules	Antihistamines	Purses	Shoes
Dashboards	Cortisone	Deodorant	Shoelace Aglets
Putty	Dyes	Panty Hose	Refrigerant
Percolators	Life Jackets	Rubbing Alcohol	Linings
Skis	TV Cabinets	Shag Rugs	Electrician’s Tape
Tool Racks	Car Battery Cases	Epoxy	Paint
Mops	Slacks	Insect Repellent	Oil Filters
Umbrellas	Yarn	Fertilizers	Hair Coloring
Roofing	Toilet Seats	Fishing Rods	Lipstick
Denture Adhesive	Linoleum	Ice Cube Trays	Synthetic Rubber
Speakers	Plastic Wood	Electric Blankets	Glycerin
Tennis Rackets	Rubber Cement	Fishing Boots	Dice
Nylon Rope	Candles	Trash Bags	House Paint
Water Pipes	Hand Lotion	Roller Skates	Surf Boards
Shampoo	Wheels	Paint Rollers	Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings	Luggage	Aspirin	Safety Glasses
Antifreeze	Football Helmets	Awnings	Eyeglasses
Clothes	Toothbrushes	Ice Chests	Footballs
Combs	CD’s & DVD’s	Paint Brushes	Detergents
Vaporizers	Balloons	Sun Glasses	Tents
Heart Valves	Crayons	Parachutes	Telephones
Enamel	Pillows	Dishes	Cameras
Anesthetics	Artificial Turf	Artificial limbs	Bandages
Dentures	Model Cars	Folding Doors	Hair Curlers
Cold cream	Movie film	Soft Contact lenses	Drinking Cups
Fan Belts	Car Enamel	Shaving Cream	Ammonia
Refrigerators	Golf Balls	Toothpaste	Gasoline

[RomaVicta 30605]

On 6/12/2022 at 10:46 AM, Neonmoon said:

The biggest contributor to greenhouse gases is cars

We need less ICB cars and more EV cars, and we need more trains. 

 

But Vibes says there isn't enough electricity to support this.

I'm guessing that back in the 1920s Charleston Flapper Vibes looked at the projected growth of car ownership and lamented, "there isn't enough gasoline production to support this!"

 

[elfenix 34754]

11 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

*****

 partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:

Solvents	Diesel fuel	Motor Oil	Bearing Grease
Ink	Floor Wax	Ballpoint Pens	Football Cleats
Upholstery	Sweaters	Boats	Insecticides
Bicycle Tires	Sports Car Bodies	Nail Polish	Fishing lures
Dresses	Tires	Golf Bags	Perfumes
Cassettes	Dishwasher parts	Tool Boxes	Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet	Caulking	Petroleum Jelly	Transparent Tape
CD Player	Faucet Washers	Antiseptics	Clothesline
Curtains	Food Preservatives	Basketballs	Soap
Vitamin Capsules	Antihistamines	Purses	Shoes
Dashboards	Cortisone	Deodorant	Shoelace Aglets
Putty	Dyes	Panty Hose	Refrigerant
Percolators	Life Jackets	Rubbing Alcohol	Linings
Skis	TV Cabinets	Shag Rugs	Electrician’s Tape
Tool Racks	Car Battery Cases	Epoxy	Paint
Mops	Slacks	Insect Repellent	Oil Filters
Umbrellas	Yarn	Fertilizers	Hair Coloring
Roofing	Toilet Seats	Fishing Rods	Lipstick
Denture Adhesive	Linoleum	Ice Cube Trays	Synthetic Rubber
Speakers	Plastic Wood	Electric Blankets	Glycerin
Tennis Rackets	Rubber Cement	Fishing Boots	Dice
Nylon Rope	Candles	Trash Bags	House Paint
Water Pipes	Hand Lotion	Roller Skates	Surf Boards
Shampoo	Wheels	Paint Rollers	Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings	Luggage	Aspirin	Safety Glasses
Antifreeze	Football Helmets	Awnings	Eyeglasses
Clothes	Toothbrushes	Ice Chests	Footballs
Combs	CD’s & DVD’s	Paint Brushes	Detergents
Vaporizers	Balloons	Sun Glasses	Tents
Heart Valves	Crayons	Parachutes	Telephones
Enamel	Pillows	Dishes	Cameras
Anesthetics	Artificial Turf	Artificial limbs	Bandages
Dentures	Model Cars	Folding Doors	Hair Curlers
Cold cream	Movie film	Soft Contact lenses	Drinking Cups
Fan Belts	Car Enamel	Shaving Cream	Ammonia
Refrigerators	Golf Balls	Toothpaste	Gasoline

again, great reason to not waste our carbon budget driving our driveway queens from cypress to the energy corridor. 

[Dahobbs 18335]

21 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

*****

 partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:

Solvents	Diesel fuel	Motor Oil	Bearing Grease
Ink	Floor Wax	Ballpoint Pens	Football Cleats
Upholstery	Sweaters	Boats	Insecticides
Bicycle Tires	Sports Car Bodies	Nail Polish	Fishing lures
Dresses	Tires	Golf Bags	Perfumes
Cassettes	Dishwasher parts	Tool Boxes	Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet	Caulking	Petroleum Jelly	Transparent Tape
CD Player	Faucet Washers	Antiseptics	Clothesline
Curtains	Food Preservatives	Basketballs	Soap
Vitamin Capsules	Antihistamines	Purses	Shoes
Dashboards	Cortisone	Deodorant	Shoelace Aglets
Putty	Dyes	Panty Hose	Refrigerant
Percolators	Life Jackets	Rubbing Alcohol	Linings
Skis	TV Cabinets	Shag Rugs	Electrician’s Tape
Tool Racks	Car Battery Cases	Epoxy	Paint
Mops	Slacks	Insect Repellent	Oil Filters
Umbrellas	Yarn	Fertilizers	Hair Coloring
Roofing	Toilet Seats	Fishing Rods	Lipstick
Denture Adhesive	Linoleum	Ice Cube Trays	Synthetic Rubber
Speakers	Plastic Wood	Electric Blankets	Glycerin
Tennis Rackets	Rubber Cement	Fishing Boots	Dice
Nylon Rope	Candles	Trash Bags	House Paint
Water Pipes	Hand Lotion	Roller Skates	Surf Boards
Shampoo	Wheels	Paint Rollers	Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings	Luggage	Aspirin	Safety Glasses
Antifreeze	Football Helmets	Awnings	Eyeglasses
Clothes	Toothbrushes	Ice Chests	Footballs
Combs	CD’s & DVD’s	Paint Brushes	Detergents
Vaporizers	Balloons	Sun Glasses	Tents
Heart Valves	Crayons	Parachutes	Telephones
Enamel	Pillows	Dishes	Cameras
Anesthetics	Artificial Turf	Artificial limbs	Bandages
Dentures	Model Cars	Folding Doors	Hair Curlers
Cold cream	Movie film	Soft Contact lenses	Drinking Cups
Fan Belts	Car Enamel	Shaving Cream	Ammonia
Refrigerators	Golf Balls	Toothpaste	Gasoline

His post was aimed at fossil fuels.  Notice, your list is mainly non-fuel products from the petrochemical industry. We can burn less oil as fuel and convert more of it to other stuff we need. 

[EuroHorn 3295]

20 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

His post was aimed at fossil fuels.  Notice, your list is mainly non-fuel products from the petrochemical industry. We can burn less oil as fuel and convert more of it to other stuff we need. 

Doesn’t Oil extraction and production produce a lot of methane gas?   They’ll have to figure out how to mitigate that globally if we still want to make all those products 

[Dahobbs 18335]

5 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Doesn’t Oil extraction and production produce a lot of methane gas?   They’ll have to figure out how to mitigate that globally if we still want to make all those products 

It does, but it can be mitigated. And, if we use less oil for fuel (right now about 80% is used for fuel), we can convert more of each barrell to other products, using significantly less oil overall. We can negate the remaining warming effect with carbon capture. 

[hookem2010 2700]

Or we could just do nothing, because it would be difficult and hurt O&G people's feelings. Remember how bad you felt for the cigarette marketers and manufacturers when they suffered from greater governmental regulation?

[Neonmoon 38130]

We can't do something new, it will hurt all the jobs

Same shit has been said for over a century. Ask the Horse Breeders, Travel Agents, Print Media, Taxis, Factory Workers, Warehouse workers, Coal Miners, Agriculture Workers

Renewable Energy is a better product for fuel because it costs less to produce and does not hurt the environment. We will still need to continue producing oil for other products like plastics until we can come up with a better product. 

 

[miguelito 11507]

On 6/20/2022 at 9:23 PM, brakeman said:

Tomorrow, not quite so hot, but with "wind heat".

 

Latitudes:

Abadan: 30.3666 degrees north

Austin: 30.2672 degrees north

[Da Fino 2820]

The frio at concan. 0.0 CFS. Bummer

 

https://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=08195000

[RomaVicta 30605]

Just pat her on the head and condescend. What's next on the agenda?

We're setting up future (near term) generations for disaster. Not just lean times or struggle, but unmitigated disaster.

The below will be viewed with absolute shock and loathing before the end of the century. We drove around in our overpowered cars (I have one, but I'm not required to drive much) and our unnecessary giant pick-ups and SUVs enjoying the last great decades of plenty without giving a ratfuck.

History will be unkind. 

[hookem2010 2700]

Yep, our kids and grandkids are going to hate us. I can't blame them.

Edited June 22, 2022 by hookem2010
I cant spell good

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

5 hours ago, Da Fino said:

The frio at concan. 0.0 CFS. Bummer

 

https://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=08195000

That’s due to just ridiculous overdevelopment and water pumping. Have seen that coming for years. 
 

Although as an aside, there was an extended drought there so pronounced that the waterfall above Neal’s was completely dry. I believe it was the 1950s. 
 

I guess people here think these are good things? 
 

Give up your livestock, farmer. 
 

Also, less food for you Africans. Europe is saving the planet. 
 

 

[Willfully Horn 8268]

Israel to be 1st in world to pipe desalinated water into a natural lake, the Galilee

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-be-1st-in-world-to-pipe-desalinated-water-into-a-natural-lake-the-galilee/

 

 

[troph 25238]

Bracing for the zealots ruling in West Virginia vs EPA. God help us all. 

[Biff Tannen 46175]

1 hour ago, troph said:

Bracing for the zealots ruling in West Virginia vs EPA. God help us all. 

Cliff's notes on this?  Been a whirlwind of shit this week and I can't keep up.

[Neonmoon 38130]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Cliff's notes on this?  Been a whirlwind of shit this week and I can't keep up.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-1530

Quote

Under a provision of the Clean Air Act, did Congress prohibit the EPA from issuing rules and standards of performance that could potentially reshape the country's electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonize any sector of the economy?

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider the statutory limitations imposed on the Environmental Protection Agency by the Clean Air Act when it attempts to regulate emissions emanating from stationary sources. Petitioner West Virginia argues that the Court should not allow the EPA to issue significant rules that can reshape the country’s electricity grids and thus expand the agency’s power to an unprecedented level. Respondent the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) responds that the Court should not read into the text an artificial restriction because any qualification will be directed at the states, not the federal agency. The Court’s decision in this case has heavy implications for the scope of federal administrative power, climate change policy, and statutory interpretation.

Spoiler

Facts 

In 1963 Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which aimed to “protect and enhance” the quality of our air. Am. Lung Ass'n v. Envtl. Prot. Agency . In 1970, Congress amended the Clean Air Act and granted the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) additional powers to regulate any “new and existing” sources of air pollution originating from stationary sources. . Congress gave the EPA ninety days following the 1970 law’s enactment to list prominent stationary source categories, such as power plants. . The EPA was also required to issue new “standards of performance” for every newly constructed stationary source within each category going forward, and new guidelines for how to reach those standards. . All regulations of power plants must undergo this process, and the federal government partners with state governments to ensure its standards are met through a variety of coordinated enforcement measures. .

In 2015, the EPA reaffirmed an earlier finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and began preparing a factual basis for a new regulatory rule. . In 2019, the EPA adopted the Affordable Clean Energy (“ACE”) rule to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants. The ACE rule repealed and replaced a preexisting set of regulations, called the Clean Power Plan. . The Clean Power Plan had to be repealed because, in the EPA’s view, it violated Section 7411(d) of the Clean Air Act by accomplishing some of its stationary source emission reduction measures offsite. . The EPA claimed that the ACE Rule rectified this issue by implementing a new system of emissions reduction–solely for coal-fired power plants–that involved on-site heat-rate improvement technologies. . The ACE rule’s guidelines for emissions reduction ranges were non-mandatory; and, the EPA predicted that the ACE rule would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by less than 1% by 2035. . The EPA relied on these estimations to argue the efficiency of the ACE rule, but environmental advocacy groups would later use the same estimates to argue the ACE rule did not go far enough. The ACE Rule’s regulations also extended the States’ deadlines for enforcing regulatory compliance plans and altered some of the evaluation mechanisms for keeping an eye on the States’ compliance with the emissions reductions. .

Several groups—including state and local governments and environmental advocacy groups—objected to the issuance of the ACE Rule and its repeal of the Clean Power Plan. . Defending its rule, the EPA argued that getting rid of the Clean Power Plant, in favor of the ACE Rule, was statutorily required by the “clear and unambiguous” language of Section 7411 of the Clean Air Act. . However, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) disagreed with the EPA, giving its interpretation of Section 7411 no deference and holding that the EPA’s interpretation was not required by Congress. . As a result, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the EPA had not relied on its own judgment and expertise in implementing the ACE rule, and accordingly invalidated the rule and remanded to the EPA. .

West Virginia, along with several other states (after the consolidation of several cases), petitioned the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision. West Virginia v. EPA Cert Petition.

Analysis 

MAJOR-QUESTIONS DOCTRINE

West Virginia argues that Congress did not clearly authorize the EPA to take any measure it deems helpful to reduce carbon emissions solely by administrative rule-making. Brief for Petitioners According to West Virginia, under the major-questions doctrine, if the power at issue has vast economic and political impact, Congress needs to delegate it to an administrative agency with clear and unambiguous language. West Virginia argues that Section 7411 does not provide the requisite clear congressional authorization. According to West Virginia, the only evidence that the federal statute clearly authorizes such power stems from the phrase “best system of emission reduction” in Section 7411(a)(1). West Virginia contends that the phrase, by itself, is unable to support the lower courts’ overbroad interpretation of Section 7411. West Virginia refutes the lower courts’ reasoning that Congress delegates such power as long as the statute does not clearly deny it to the EPA; instead, West Virginia insists that such power must be affirmatively granted, and that only the former ACE rule is within the scope of the statute.

West Virginia further argues that the power at issue is undoubtedly significant: according to the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation, it says, Congress authorizes the EPA to determine which method comprises the “best system” for a regulated source. West Virginia contends that, per the D.C. Circuit’s view, the EPA could take almost any measure to compel stationary sources to meet a given standard of performance, such as shutting down carbon-emitting facilities and banning the importation of carbon-intensive goods. West Virginia also points to the actual financial difficulties facing states and individuals should the D.C. Circuit’s decision stand. According to West Virginia, re-implementing the CPP alone would cause the cost of wholesale electricity to rise by $214 billion, and it would cost an additional $64 billion to replace the power capacity reduced under the CPP. West Virginia further argues that the scope of the D.C. Circuit decision’s implicit grant of authority is also unprecedented, tacitly permitting the EPA to regulate any building that uses or produces carbon-generating power. According to West Virginia, the lower court’s overbroad interpretation of Section 7411 allows the agency to impose measures that impact millions of Americans, constituting a “major question” of utmost importance.

The EPA refutes West Virginia’s argument that the major-questions doctrine requires a narrow reading of Section 7411(d)(1)(A). Brief for Respondents According to the EPA, the principal language of Section 7411 is directed not at the EPA, but rather at the states (when they devise and implement their own regulatory police powers in coordination with the EPA rule). The EPA argues that the Court has never restrained the police power of the states while interpreting a federal regulation. The EPA contends that the issue of whether the regulation involves a major question must be decided on a case-by-case basis; even if some exercises of an agency’s power might implicate the major-questions doctrine, the EPA contends, it does not follow that all exercises of that power are categorically forbidden.

Consolidated Edison and other power companies (“Power Companies”) are also Respondents in this case alongside the EPA and argue that the major-questions doctrine is not applicable here because what West Virginia asks for is essentially an advisory opinion. Brief for Respondents According to Power Companies, the lower courts’ decision that the statute does not limit the agency’s authority does not by itself constitute agency action. Power Companies also point out that the application of the major-questions doctrine will depart from the Supreme Court’s precedents; so far, the Court has only reviewed actual agency regulation. According to Power Companies, if the Court applies the doctrine as West Virginia asks, it will contradict the Court’s long-established principle to avoid judicial overreaching and will create administrability problems.

TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION

West Virginia asserts that Section 7411, when correctly interpreted, does not empower the EPA to regulate across industries or manage the country’s electricity supply, but only gives the EPA power inside the fenceline. West Virginia argues that the lower court improperly interpreted the terms in an unlimited, context-free way. According to West Virginia, the terms that Congress uses are source-specific: for example, for a standard of performance to reflect “achievable” degrees of emission reduction through an “adequately demonstrated” system, the EPA cannot pick any target it wants, but must base its evaluation on techniques that have been tested in the real world. If the EPA can pick any target and average emissions across different sources, West Virginia argues that any system can be “adequately demonstrated” and any target achievable.

West Virginia also distinguishes the singular and plural forms of the word “source” in Section 7411(b)(1) and (d)(1). According to West Virginia, since standards of performance must be established “for any existing source,” they are case-specific, which makes it hard to interpret the term “best system” without taking a particular source into account. Since outside-the-fenceline measures do not connect to a specific source, West Virginia argues that they are excluded. West Virginia also emphasizes that any standard of performance must apply to the “stationary source,” which is the building itself, rather than to its “owner or operator,” which is separately defined, and therefore no outside-the-fenceline measure is allowed.

West Virginia further points out that Congress must use explicit language if it intends to delegate to a federal agency power that is traditionally reserved to the states. According to West Virginia, regulating utilities is long associated with the police power of the states. West Virginia further argues that Congress also takes federalism into account when it allows the states to enact and administer their own regulatory programs. West Virginia also contends that the plan that the EPA intends to implement would upset the balance between the state and federal government by allowing the EPA to step into realms traditionally reserved to the states.

The EPA refutes West Virginia’s argument that it cannot use outside-the-fenceline measures based on the text. According to the EPA, West Virginia misreads the word “achievable” in the statute: the word “achievable” qualifies the “degree of emission limitation,” and the “degree of emission limitation achievable” is evaluated based on “application of the best system of emission reduction.” The EPA argues that, for each source category subject to regulation under Section 7411(d), the EPA first determines the “systems of emission reduction” that are “adequately demonstrated,” then evaluates the “best” of those systems, and finally derives from the best system an “achievable” “degree of emission limitation.”

According to the EPA, nothing in the requirement that states must “establish standards of performance for any existing source” distinguishes inside-the-fenceline measures such as heat-rate improvements and carbon capture and sequestration from outside-the-fenceline measures like biomass co-firing and trading. The EPA argues that even if, as West Virginia contends, the standard of performance must apply to the building itself, it does not bar outside-the-fenceline measures, because nothing in the text indicates that all emission reduction must occur at the source.

The EPA argues that West Virginia’s interpretation of the statute undermines rather than supports federalism concerns. According to the EPA, the statute’s language used by West Virginia in support of their argument is directed at the states, not the EPA, and any limitation it reads into the text would also be imposed on the states. The EPA thus concludes that nothing in Section 7411(d) bars states from using outside-the-fenceline measures, and a narrow reading of the text would unreasonably constrain state power.

Discussion 

SCOPE OF THE EPA

West Virginia argues that one of the biggest problems with the D.C. Circuit’s decision is that it widened the scope of the power of the EPA. West Virginia v. EPA Cert Petition. According to West Virginia, the lower court’s decision gave the EPA a “judicial edict” to not satisfy itself with a narrower interpretation of emission reduction practices limited to individual plants. West Virginia argues that, unless the decision is reversed, the EPA has been given “universal power” to affect American life, and that such authority is far too expansive. West Virginia further claims that the EPA has been given power to influence hundreds of billions of dollars over several industries. Brief for Petitioners The North American Coal Corporation (“NACC”), in support of West Virginia, argues that the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the case grants the EPA power to restructure all carbon-emitting industries with a huge level of control over economic activity across the country. Brief of the North American Coal Corporation The NACC goes further, contending that the EPA has been given “carte-blanche” to decide the entire climate change policy of the country. Westmoreland Mining Holdings further makes the point that giving the EPA expansive authority to decide climate change policy runs roughshod over the rightful power of Congress to set policy. Brief of Westmoreland Mining Holdings, LLC

Several Respondents, including the State of New York, counter that such arguments are slippery-slopes and not justifiable. Brief of State of New York, and Other State and Municipal RespondentsSimilarly, Federal Respondents argue that what Petitioners really fear is any future rule-making the EPA might engage in that would impact their specific economic interests. Brief of Federal Respondents However, they argue, such fear is not only unjustifiable but also unrealistic. The D.C. Circuit did not, they contend, embolden the next “Green New Deal,” but simply upheld the consistent themes and mandates of the EPA itself.
Climate Scientists, in support of the EPA, also push back on Petitioners’ complaints that the EPA’s scope has been impermissibly expanded. , in Support of RespondentsThe Climate Scientists argue that the EPA should be given extensive power to combat climate change. The Climate Scientists argue that the Supreme Court should “exercise caution” in limiting the EPA’s powers to combat climate change and its effects in any way. Thomas Jorling, one of the chief architects of the Clean Air Act and in support of the EPA, rebuts Petitioners’ argument that the D.C. Circuit expanded the EPA’s powers at the expense of Congress’s powers. Brief of Amicus Curiae Thomas C. Jorling, in Support of Respondents at 7 Jorling argues that the D.C. Circuit’s decision is consistent with the Clean Air Act’s powers, which were explicitly established by Congress itself.

Cliff Notes:

1963 - Clean Air Act passed

1970 - Congress gives power to EPA to regulate pollution 

2007 - Supreme Court Affirms EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. (Massachusetts v. EPA)

2009 - EPA has scientific findings that greenhouse gas emission endanger public health. 

2019 - Trump EPA repeals and replaces Clean Power Plan that regulated greenhouse gas emission of power plants to ACE rule, which only monitors coal power plants. ACE rules guts greenhouse gas emission reductions

2022 - Court of American Fascists will rule that EPA can't do shit and everyone can pollute as much as possible. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Neonmoon

[WhatTheBuck 28932]

Nixon only did a couple of good things and modern Republicans are going to do their best to dismantle that legacy while enshrining every bad thing he ever did as party doctrine. 

[GreenspointTexas 9987]

RIP Climate

[hookem2010 2700]

Who's excited to experience higher temperatures than any human has lived through in our 200,000 years on the planet!!!

[Biff Tannen 46175]

Now now, I'm sure those corporations will police themselves...

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

It appears that restricting people’s ability to feed themselves and others in the name of the climate is going to cause some upheaval. 
 

 

[Bullneck 19543]

9 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

It appears that restricting people’s ability to feed themselves and others in the name of the climate is going to cause some upheaval. 
 

 

Here's another post from "Radio Genova."  Some good company you keep.

 

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

IV is a troll. He is anti-vax, anti-government, anti-democracy, anti-immigrant, anti-fiat. Here’s here to push hate and division. He should be banned. Oh wait, he already has been three times. 
 

here’s another gem from his source 

 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

16 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Here's another post from "Radio Genova."  Some good company you keep.

 

 

Way to address the content. 

Cutting back on farmers and ranchers to save the environment is bad policy. Especially leading into food shortages. I predict even more backlash if they proceed on a larger scale with these policies. 
 

16 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

He is anti-vax, anti-government, anti-democracy, anti-immigrant, anti-fiat.

Anti-mandate, no, not really, anti-illegal and unfettered immigration, YES

 

16 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Here’s here to push hate and division.

Should I only be pushing love and unity? What is this, some kind of cult?

 

I’m here because I’m a contrarian by nature. I read this board because I find it fascinating to read the opinions of a mass of people that disagree with me on most topics. Sometimes this board needs a counter weight against the orthodoxy. 
 

“We must fight climate change at all costs.”
 

Hey how about farmers and ranchers being forcibly shut down for some regulatory climate goals? Or what about self imposed energy shortages around the world? These things won’t have any repercussions! 

 

“We are doing so great with Ukraine. Look at these countries that joined NATO and all these great victories. Our sanctions are so well thought out. The ruble is rubble!”
 

Hey how about the ruble at multi year highs and Putin actually making more money than ever selling commodities? Oh and btw they’ve been slowly making military advances despite us giving tens of billions of dollars to help. Oh and more countries are slowing moving away from us, actually. 
 

The list could go on but it’s Friday evening. A holiday weekend. Y’all stay safe out there. Im going to move my traffic over to the recruiting board now. It should just be nice positive vibes all weekend when I check in. 
 

✌🏻 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Immaculate Vibes

[Bullneck 19543]

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

We must fight climate change at all costs.

All costs EXCEPT unplugging the blockchain?

[Biff Tannen 46175]

2 hours ago, Bullneck said:

All costs EXCEPT unplugging the blockchain?

Oh, well definitely not that...don't let's be silly.

[Bullneck 19543]

4 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Way to address the content. 

Cutting back on farmers and ranchers to save the environment is bad policy. Especially leading into food shortages. I predict even more backlash if they proceed on a larger scale with these policies. 
 

Anti-mandate, no, not really, anti-illegal and unfettered immigration, YES

 

Should I only be pushing love and unity? What is this, some kind of cult?

 

I’m here because I’m a contrarian by nature. I read this board because I find it fascinating to read the opinions of a mass of people that disagree with me on most topics. Sometimes this board needs a counter weight against the orthodoxy. 
 

We must fight climate change at all costs.
 

Hey how about farmers and ranchers being forcibly shut down for some regulatory climate goals? Or what about self imposed energy shortages around the world? These things won’t have any repercussions! 

 

We are doing so great with Ukraine. Look at these countries that joined NATO and all these great victories. Our sanctions are so well thought out. The ruble is rubble!
 

Hey how about the ruble at multi year highs and Putin actually making more money than ever selling commodities? Oh and btw they’ve been slowly making military advances despite us giving tens of billions of dollars to help. Oh and more countries are slowing moving away from us, actually. 
 

The list could go on but it’s Friday evening. A holiday weekend. Y’all stay safe out there. Im going to move my traffic over to the recruiting board now. It should just be nice positive vibes all weekend when I check in. 
 

✌🏻 

 

[hookem2010 2700]

I'm not going to look at IV's bullshit, but if EU ranchers are anywhere near as entitled as American ranchers seem to largely be, they can go fuck themselves.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

11 hours ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

2 hours ago, hookem2010 said:

I'm not going to look at IV's bullshit

 

[RomaVicta 30605]

On 7/1/2022 at 6:41 PM, Immaculate Vibes said:

Way to address the content. 

Cutting back on farmers and ranchers to save the environment is bad policy. Especially leading into food shortages. I predict even more backlash if they proceed on a larger scale with these policies. 
 

Anti-mandate, no, not really, anti-illegal and unfettered immigration, YES

 

Should I only be pushing love and unity? What is this, some kind of cult?

 

I’m here because I’m a contrarian by nature. I read this board because I find it fascinating to read the opinions of a mass of people that disagree with me on most topics. Sometimes this board needs a counter weight against the orthodoxy. 
 

“We must fight climate change at all costs.”
 

Hey how about farmers and ranchers being forcibly shut down for some regulatory climate goals? Or what about self imposed energy shortages around the world? These things won’t have any repercussions! 

 

“We are doing so great with Ukraine. Look at these countries that joined NATO and all these great victories. Our sanctions are so well thought out. The ruble is rubble!”
 

Hey how about the ruble at multi year highs and Putin actually making more money than ever selling commodities? Oh and btw they’ve been slowly making military advances despite us giving tens of billions of dollars to help. Oh and more countries are slowing moving away from us, actually. 
 

The list could go on but it’s Friday evening. A holiday weekend. Y’all stay safe out there. Im going to move my traffic over to the recruiting board now. It should just be nice positive vibes all weekend when I check in. 
 

✌🏻 

Negged for blatant straw man creation. "At all costs." Yes, we would butcher children and process aborted fetuses to feed the third world to save the climate. 

Your whole point is obstructionist like your party/Russian masters. Any argument or fact invalidates what it attacks. It's third rate sophistry coming from a liar who won't even reveal his true motives for posting what he does.

"Oh, I'm just a contrarian by nature." Sure, I bet you can fly, too.

Edited July 11, 2022 by RomaVicta

[Biff Tannen 46175]

39 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

 

 

This will forever be what I think you look like.  It’s very fitting.