Biden sued by 12 states over climate executive order: 'Enormous expansion of federal regulatory powe

[civilwarbuff]

Biden sued by 12 states over climate executive order: 'Enormous expansion of federal regulatory power'

So, necessary action or federal power grab? Does the president have the authority to issue an EO mandating this?

Thoughts/comments?

 

[iluvatar5150]

These social costs are already factored in to government action:
The Social Cost of Carbon | Climate Change | US EPA
EPA Revises the Social Cost of a Potent Greenhouse Gas

All the EO does is set up a (or revive a pre-existing, I'm not sure which) working group to make the numbers more accurate:
Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis | The White House

If the lawsuit's claims are accurate, then they're implicitly admitting that Missouri agriculture is built on negative externalities, foisting costs onto others. So much for conservatives valuing free, undistorted markets and property rights.

 

[SkyWriting]

Biden sued by 12 states over climate executive order: 'Enormous expansion of federal regulatory power'So, necessary action or federal power grab? Does the president have the authority to issue an EO mandating this?Thoughts/comments?

Every section says to work with existing laws. So Yes, he can encourage this action.

To that end, this order directs all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and other actions during the last 4 years that conflict with these important national objectives, and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis.

Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis | The White House

 

[civilwarbuff]

Every section says to work with existing laws. So Yes, he can encourage this action.





Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis | The White House

To that end, this order directs all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and other actions during the last 4 years that conflict with these important national objectives, and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis.
(a) The heads of all agencies shall immediately review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (agency actions) promulgated, issued, or adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. For any such actions identified by the agencies, the heads of agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider suspending, revising, or rescinding the agency actions. In addition, for the agency actions in the 4 categories set forth in subsections (i) through (iv) of this section, the head of the relevant agency, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall consider publishing for notice and comment a proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding the agency action within the time frame specified.
Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis | The White House

Sorry, but what Biden has said in this EO is to ignore any rules, regulations, and other actions if they conflict with his EO.....and to use their own judgement (yeah, their judgement, right). Talk about rule by fiat.....

 

[parousia70]

If the lawsuit's claims are accurate, then they're implicitly admitting that Missouri agriculture is built on negative externalities, foisting costs onto others. So much for conservatives valuing free, undistorted markets and property rights.

Privatize the Profits, Socialize the Costs and Losses.

This is The Conservative way.

 

[hedrick]

To that end, this order directs all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and other actions during the last 4 years that conflict with these important national objectives, and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis.
(a) The heads of all agencies shall immediately review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (agency actions) promulgated, issued, or adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. For any such actions identified by the agencies, the heads of agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider suspending, revising, or rescinding the agency actions. In addition, for the agency actions in the 4 categories set forth in subsections (i) through (iv) of this section, the head of the relevant agency, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall consider publishing for notice and comment a proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding the agency action within the time frame specified.
Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis | The White House

Sorry, but what Biden has said in this EO is to ignore any rules, regulations, and other actions if they conflict with his EO.....and to use their own judgement (yeah, their judgement, right). Talk about rule by fiat.....

No. He said to review all rules. If they find rules they don’t like there are processes to change them. I don’t see how a court could order the administration not to look at its rules. Suits would happen when a change is proposed. In most cases there are formal rule making processes that require review before changing rules. No doubt they’ll find a sympathetic judge in East Texas, but it’s hard to believe he could issue any order that could actually be carried out.

 

[hedrick]

As to social costs, I think the first legal case would have to come the first time the new numbers are used as the basis of a rule. If the law allows the administration to make a rule on a certain topic, it’s hard to argue that it’s overreach for them to do so. However courts consider it unconstitutional to create rules without a reasonable basis. You’d have to argue that counting social costs is not reasonable. I don’t know how courts will rule, but if there’s a reasonable basis for the computation, I think it’s appropriate.

One of the major reasons we have governments is to prevent companies from doing things that are good for them but ness up everyone else. If that’s not valid we lose all rules about safety. Rules about safety often use precisely this estimate of social cost. It sounds bad, but you have to place a value on lives and estimate how many will likely be lost compared to the cost of the rule. Without that, we’d have a rule about every conceivable danger, no matter how small. The same approach should be used for environmental rules. It doesn’t make sense to have a rule unless the danger it is protecting against is more serious than the economic impact of the rule.

It sounds like these states want us to completely ignore the damage caused by some activities.

 

[SkyWriting]

To that end, this order directs all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and other actions during the last 4 years that conflict with these important national objectives, and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis.
(a) The heads of all agencies shall immediately review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (agency actions) promulgated, issued, or adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. For any such actions identified by the agencies, the heads of agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider suspending, revising, or rescinding the agency actions. In addition, for the agency actions in the 4 categories set forth in subsections (i) through (iv) of this section, the head of the relevant agency, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall consider publishing for notice and comment a proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding the agency action within the time frame specified.
Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis | The White House

Sorry, but what Biden has said in this EO is to ignore any rules, regulations, and other actions if they conflict with his EO.....and to use their own judgement (yeah, their judgement, right). Talk about rule by fiat.....

Yes, I read it all. It's legal. Even the mention of the last four years is within his power to say. I don't think he bolded those words though. I bet you did that. If he bolded those words, that would have been over the top.

 

[civilwarbuff]

If they find rules they don’t like

'they don't like'?.....really?.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's legal.

......and the basis for your determination is........what?......because you agree with him?