EPA's New Coal Pollution Rules: More Death, More Asthma

[hedrick]

IMO it is unlawful ... as no State, to my knowledge, engages in pollution commerce.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" Dealing with pollution promotes the general welfare. Note that promoting general welfare and common defence are authorized in the same places. If we can't regulate pollution we can't have a military.

 

[ananda]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" Dealing with pollution promotes the general welfare. Note that promoting general welfare and common defence are authorized in the same places. If we can't regulate pollution we can't have a military.

That's speaking about the Legislative Branch (Congress), not the Executive Branch (EPA).

EPA rules not passed by Congress do not fall under this Constitutional law.

 

[hedrick]

That's speaking about the Legislative Branch (Congress), not the Executive Branch (EPA).

EPA rules not passed by Congress do not fall under this Constitutional law.

Does Congress have to issue all orders in the military? That's absurd.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Great! It sounds like you're ready to live under my dictatorship then, as I deem my rational thought and full knowledge as superior to yours. Your "wants" are irrelevant.

Yes, I'm sure you see the CLean Air and Clean Water acts and the EPA as terrible dictatorships.

Look, we KNOW what will happen if the Trump EPA devolves this back to the states. It will fracture and dilute any valuable change that NEEDS to happen.

Why do you think things like the Montreal Protocol work? They are international treaties to deal with a KNOWN issue. That's how things work when it is a global problem.

No, I'm suggesting that probably most federal regulations are unlawful under the Constitution.

Then you and I have a very different view of how this country operates. Thankfully you have never actually lived in the kind of "paradise" of states-rights you talk about.

And more likely than not you don't know the value that federal programs like the EPA and Clean Air/Clean Water had because you have only really known those things.

But good luck with that! I'm sure we'll all value your states-level control as we suffer through more global warming and pollution.

The reason we are suffering right now with the early effects of global warming is because people who don't understand the science are easily led by folks who understand it all to well but want to pedal doubt for profit. The best way to eliminate a real solution to a problem is to sow doubt and then fracture any infrastructure necessary to fix it.

And then to convince American voters that it's all just a "states-rights" issue. LOL.

Suckered.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Pollution is not commerce, nobody is trading or trafficking pollution. The commerce clause does not give the federal gov't authority to regulate it.

If the People decides pollution needs to be regulated at the federal level, then a Constitutional amendment could address it.

Until then, whether or not "it should be regulated at the federal level" is a separate question from "is it lawful for the federal government to regulate it".

Sounds like the Constitution needs to be torn up and used as toilet paper because it's straight trash. I guess the Constitution is the reason America is such a stupid and idiotic nation.

 

[ananda]

Does Congress have to issue all orders in the military? That's absurd.

IMO yes. All rules and regulations should originate from Congress: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States".

This is an excellent check on preventing government from growing too big, too fast.

 

[ananda]

Yes, I'm sure you see the CLean Air and Clean Water acts and the EPA as terrible dictatorships.

Look, we KNOW what will happen if the Trump EPA devolves this back to the states. It will fracture and dilute any valuable change that NEEDS to happen.

Why do you think things like the Montreal Protocol work? They are international treaties to deal with a KNOWN issue. That's how things work when it is a global problem.



Then you and I have a very different view of how this country operates. Thankfully you have never actually lived in the kind of "paradise" of states-rights you talk about.

And more likely than not you don't know the value that federal programs like the EPA and Clean Air/Clean Water had because you have only really known those things.

But good luck with that! I'm sure we'll all value your states-level control as we suffer through more global warming and pollution.

The reason we are suffering right now with the early effects of global warming is because people who don't understand the science are easily led by folks who understand it all to well but want to pedal doubt for profit. The best way to eliminate a real solution to a problem is to sow doubt and then fracture any infrastructure necessary to fix it.

And then to convince American voters that it's all just a "states-rights" issue. LOL.

Suckered.

Sorry to hear you've been suckered! In any case, your "wants" are irrelevant, after all.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Sorry to hear you've been suckered! In any case, your "wants" are irrelevant, after all.

Oh my, so clever! What an unexpected turn about! I am wounded!

Actually, in all reality, the whole "states-rights" debate is counterproductive and a distraction. This is an issue that HAS to be taken care of on a national and a global level.

As I noted the Montreal Protocols (you might want to google that one) were effective in eliminating some of the dangerous CFC's attacking our ozone layer. An international treaty did the trick. Would it be rational to leave it down to individual states to decide? Nope. Because we don't have physical borders in the air.

The US has a bad track record of people who like to spread a lot of doubt for profit. And turning this into some sort of unique "states rights" case is just another method of doing it. Note that the Trump administration devolve this back to the states precisely in order to dilute the effectiveness of environmental regulation. And it was done for profit.

You already live in a country which has FEDERAL RULES and LAWS and we already fought a Civil War over this topic. The strict states-rights folks lost.

If you want to tell me how important it is for STATES to control EMISSIONS then perhaps you can tell me how good things were before the Clean Air act was set up federally.

Or not.

 

[Halbhh]

Trump's EPA is trying to take that power away from the states that want to do more.

Useful article. I noticed also the very last sentence, and how sometimes some libertarian writers seem completely unaware of the famous "Tragedy of the Commons" problem -- why the free market doesn't work well with things like air pollution. But it's so basic, it seems like to me, but then I was libertarian more than just a year or two, so I had time to learn more than just a couple of things about the ideas. It's unlikely the writer is willfully ignorant is my guess. Instead it's just pure lack of knowledge. Lack of learning. We can always hope that by explaining, people will learn (if we don't get caught up in egoistic arguing with them).

 

[iluvatar5150]

I did not bring up libertarianism at all.

You didn't have to mention the word. Your ideas are textbook libertarianism (at least as they exist in the wing of the movement that prefers fantasies over reality).

I am merely pointing out that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate non-commercial pollution (like the side products of coal burning), and your proposed case stretches the Constitution to the point of rendering it pointless.

And I've pointed out that your notion of commerce is absurdly narrow - in fact, not only have you not defined "commerce" as you perceived, I honestly can't imagine how you would define it in a way that excludes commercial power generation.

But have at it: how is the disposal of waste products from a commercial industry not part of the commerce of that industry?

That's speaking about the Legislative Branch (Congress), not the Executive Branch (EPA).

EPA rules not passed by Congress do not fall under this Constitutional law.

Congress enacted laws and delegated the administration of some of those laws to the EPA.

 

[ananda]

Oh my, so clever! What an unexpected turn about! I am wounded!

Actually, in all reality, the whole "states-rights" debate is counterproductive and a distraction. This is an issue that HAS to be taken care of on a national and a global level.

As I noted the Montreal Protocols (you might want to google that one) were effective in eliminating some of the dangerous CFC's attacking our ozone layer. An international treaty did the trick. Would it be rational to leave it down to individual states to decide? Nope. Because we don't have physical borders in the air.

The US has a bad track record of people who like to spread a lot of doubt for profit. And turning this into some sort of unique "states rights" case is just another method of doing it. Note that the Trump administration devolve this back to the states precisely in order to dilute the effectiveness of environmental regulation. And it was done for profit.

You already live in a country which has FEDERAL RULES and LAWS and we already fought a Civil War over this topic. The strict states-rights folks lost.

If you want to tell me how important it is for STATES to control EMISSIONS then perhaps you can tell me how good things were before the Clean Air act was set up federally.

Or not.

Your wants and priorities are irrelevant, as you yourself stated.

 

[ananda]

And I've pointed out that your notion of commerce is absurdly narrow - in fact, not only have you not defined "commerce" as you perceived, I honestly can't imagine how you would define it in a way that excludes commercial power generation. But have at it: how is the disposal of waste products from a commercial industry not part of the commerce of that industry?

Your position is premised on the idea that big industry is a good thing. I do not operate under that assumption.

And yes, I have defined "commerce", in post #47 ("the trade or traffic of commodities"), based on the definition found in law dictionaries closer to the time the Constitution was drafted.

Congress enacted laws and delegated the administration of some of those laws to the EPA.

I haven't read anywhere in the Constitution where it allows Congress to delegate its legislative responsibilities, especially to the Executive(!) branch. This defeats the whole purpose of separating the government into three branches.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Your position is premised on the idea that big industry is a good thing. I do not operate under that assumption.

What are you talking about? My opinion on industry being a good thing or bad thing is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. That it is <a> thing is all that matters.

And yes, I have defined "commerce", in post #47 ("the trade or traffic of commodities"), based on the definition found in law dictionaries closer to the time the Constitution was drafted.

1.) You haven't established that your narrow definition is accurate.
2.) Even if it is accurate, you haven't established that it's relevant, since interstate commerce has grown substantially since the constitution was written. There's nothing in the constitution requiring that we only concepts as they existed in the 18th century.
3.) Even if your definition is accurate and relevant, you haven't established how it doesn't cover the waste products of a commercial industry.

Electricity is a commodity. The fuel for those power plants is a commodity. And while the waste products from the generation of that power have arguably little value, there is plenty of value to be had in their removal, i.e. in being free from the negative impacts of their presence.

Power plants buy fuel (often from out of state) and sell electricity (often across state lines). Their waste products cause a reduction in the value of the affected property and the health of the people occupying it. Allowing air pollution to spread outside the property boundaries of the power plant effectively robs neighbors of their wealth by transferring that negative property & health value from the power plant to neighboring areas. Every step along the way brings the potential for its commercial activity extending out of state.

I haven't read anywhere in the Constitution where it allows Congress to delegate its legislative responsibilities, especially to the Executive(!) branch. This defeats the whole purpose of separating the government into three branches.

The constitution is ambiguous on the matter. The courts have decided that some degree of delegation is permissible.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Your wants and priorities are irrelevant, as you yourself stated.

Actually no. Considering that my "wants" in this case correspond with the best available data and evidence.

But you clearly misunderstood my post or are now dedicated to misrepresenting the point, so I'll leave you to your...."erudition" or whatever it is you fancy you are doing.

 

[super animator]

Libertarian ideology is something of a continuum and IME LOTS of folks like to use "freedom" and "constitutionality" as simple-minded, kneejerk justifications for reducing federal regulation, despite federal oversight being perfectly legal and appropriate. They don't have to exist way on the fringes, arguing that federal law == dictatorship, in order to exhibit some of the same ideas.

Where exactly do you meet these folks?
In real life?
Youtube?
Twitter?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Where exactly do you meet these folks?
In real life?
Youtube?
Twitter?

IRL, message boards, FB. It's pretty common.

 

[super animator]

IRL, message boards, FB. It's pretty common.

Side note: I don't use FB as that tend to created echo chambers.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Where exactly do you meet these folks?
In real life?
Youtube?
Twitter?

Have to admit it seems to be a pretty common effect.

Once people adopt any given philosophy it certain in the early stages takes on a "hard line" view. Libertarians seem to dislike (at least in the beginning) any sort of oversight on actions. The desire to keep the big government out of their affairs is often extrapolated to "ZERO AGGRESSION" (ZAP) Principals in which even collecting taxes is considered equivalent to being held up at gun point.

This is how early-stage libertarians seem to exist (well for the first several years after they discover Ayn Rand and start thinking that's a rational way to live). Usually later on, with experience, they seem to moderate. Even Ayn Rand took government help when she was in the late stages of her life apparently.

I rather assume it is like those of us who become atheists: at first all religion must be opposed then after a while you remember that most people of faith are usually pretty OK and you can live with them around having their beliefs and stuff.

 

[AirPo]

That's speaking about the Legislative Branch (Congress), not the Executive Branch (EPA).

EPA rules not passed by Congress do not fall under this Constitutional law.

Sure they do since

The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Side note: I don't use FB as that tend to created echo chambers.

CF creates echo chambers. ALL anonymous social interaction outlets create echo chambers. People in general don't listen to facts when assessing their opinions after they have formed them. That's just human nature.

Study after study shows that if people are debating each other on a point, the introduction of facts to the conversation will seldom result in someone changing their minds. Then couple that with reinforcement from similar folks on the same board et viola, echo chamber.

I've got plenty of conservative friends on FB and a ton of ultra liberal friends. Sometimes both parties annoy me with the types of posts they make.