Supreme Court Limits E.P.A.’s Ability to Restrict Power Plant Emissions

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,484
3,582
Twin Cities
✟725,021.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, dealing a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent, saying that the majority had stripped the E.P.A. of “the power to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
Live Updates: Supreme Court Decision Strips Federal Government of Crucial Tool to Control Pollution

Why would you cheer for more pollution? Isn't the DMV "unelected unaccountable bureaucrats?" Who is supposed to regulate emissions if not the Environmental Protection Agency? I supposed the industry will regulate itself now. Why is it a victory to work against the planet's breathable air? We are supposed to be caretakers of the Earth.
 

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, dealing a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent, saying that the majority had stripped the E.P.A. of “the power to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
Live Updates: Supreme Court Decision Strips Federal Government of Crucial Tool to Control Pollution

Why would you cheer for more pollution? Isn't the DMV "unelected unaccountable bureaucrats?" Who is supposed to regulate emissions if not the Environmental Protection Agency? I supposed the industry will regulate itself now. Why is it a victory to work against the planet's breathable air? We are supposed to be caretakers of the Earth.
Because of the war in Ukraine, much of Europe is facing severe energy shortages. They relied on Russia for natural gas, oil and coal. In the past they had closed much of their nuclear and coal generation capacity. Now they are restarting coal power plants due to the emergency. Winter is approaching. Pipes freeze when buildings are not heated. As they freeze the ice expands, the pipes burst and water gushed out after they thawed again. Copper pipe is not cheap. Environmentalists are trying to close copper mines too. We need copper for water pipes, electric wiring and coils used in EV clean energy vehicles.o

Global coal use is increasing as the poor can not afford to switch to solar-battery power. Few people in my county have solar cell roof top units and this county is middle class.
 
Upvote 0

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
19,641
3,658
Midlands
Visit site
✟551,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Good news. Hopefully this mindset will osmose through government. No more super bureaucrats making laws. There are many such areas such as the department of agriculture, the department of education, the IRS. etc. etc.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
If you want emissions regulated so badly let it happen through the democratic process instead of a unaccountable bureaucratic agency.
You may have missed the broader point:
The EPA gets its authority through Congress that tells the agency “find the best & brightest and create policies that safeguard our environment”.
The EPA does so and the suit brought by a state suggests that Congress cannot delegate its authority in that fashion; rather each and every “regulation” has to be voted upon by Congress.
In addition to slowing the already glacial-timelines with which everything proceeds, environmental concerns are to be voted on by partisan politicians.
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,465.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Good news. Hopefully this mindset will osmose through government. No more super bureaucrats making laws. There are many such areas such as the department of agriculture, the department of education, the IRS. etc. etc.
Yes good news if your in favour of murder suicide. Otherwise not.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
You may have missed the broader point:
The EPA gets its authority through Congress that tells the agency “find the best & brightest and create policies that safeguard our environment”.
The EPA does so and the suit brought by a state suggests that Congress cannot delegate its authority in that fashion; rather each and every “regulation” has to be voted upon by Congress.
In addition to slowing the already glacial-timelines with which everything proceeds, environmental concerns are to be voted on by partisan politicians.

I don't miss any point. I think appointing an agency and giving it broad discretion to do whatever it likes without democratic oversight betrays the notion of representation and only increases centralized power. These agencies should be limited in what they can and cannot do but they seem only to be ever expanding in the scope and jurisdiction.

You might not like it, but then if you are really concerned about this, vote in people who will act on it. If you cannot achieve that, democratically, what do you have to complain about?
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't miss any point. I think appointing an agency and giving it broad discretion to do whatever it likes without democratic oversight betrays the notion of representation and only increases centralized power. These agencies should be limited in what they can and cannot do but they seem only to be ever expanding in the scope and jurisdiction.

You might not like it, but then if you are really concerned about this, vote in people who will act on it. If you cannot achieve that, democratically, what do you have to complain about?
As is pointed out several times a day: the USA is not a Democracy but a Republic.
Voting on what chemicals are allowed to be vented into the atmosphere is anathema to good science.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
As is pointed out several times a day: the USA is not a Democracy but a Republic.
Voting on what chemicals are allowed to be vented into the atmosphere is anathema to good science.
Does that mean you federal agencies get broad latitude to do whatever they deem necessary?

Also, it's US Democrats who keep telling me that the USA is a Democracy, that it is sacred and under threat constantly. I would think that surely this issue could be solved democratically rather than relying on centralized authority in a government agency that has control over what every American does environmentally. Or maybe it could be controlled by the states, that would be more Republican than the model you propose.

Whether or not it is good or bad for science isn't the issue. The issue is one of authority and power. the EPA doesn't have the power to limit emissions via decree. Therefore, do it democratically and force congress to do it. If you cannot the people have spoken through their representatives.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,484
3,582
Twin Cities
✟725,021.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I don't miss any point. I think appointing an agency and giving it broad discretion to do whatever it likes without democratic oversight betrays the notion of representation and only increases centralized power.
The EPA is not a rogue agency and congress does have oversight from my understanding. This is just a way to put more money in the pockets of the energy cabal.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
2,449
4,167
50
Florida
✟239,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Does that mean you federal agencies get broad latitude to do whatever they deem necessary?

Also, it's US Democrats who keep telling me that the USA is a Democracy, that it is sacred and under threat constantly. I would think that surely this issue could be solved democratically rather than relying on centralized authority in a government agency that has control over what every American does environmentally. Or maybe it could be controlled by the states, that would be more Republican than the model you propose.

Whether or not it is good or bad for science isn't the issue. The issue is one of authority and power. the EPA doesn't have the power to limit emissions via decree. Therefore, do it democratically and force congress to do it. If you cannot the people have spoken through their representatives.


Congress passed numerous laws over the years that air must be clean to a certain parts per million and water ways must be kept clean and that dumping chemicals is illegal and what not. The Executive branch, as per its Constitutional mandate, created an agency, the EPA, whose express purpose is to enforce those laws. It does that by creating regulations for specific industries and scenarios like how much coal dust a power plant can allow to drift into the air and surrounding waterways or how they must dispose of coal ash and such. The Supreme Court has just ruled that the Executive branch does not have the authority to enforce laws passed by the Legislative branch and that the Legislative branch itself should be the ones enforcing the laws it passes.

That literally goes against the structure of the government as laid out in the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0