1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

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

Discussion in 'News & Current Events (Articles Required)' started by rturner76, Jun 30, 2022.

  1. rturner76

    rturner76 Domine non-sum dignus Supporter

    +2,994
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    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.
     
  2. dqhall

    dqhall Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,832
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  3. SavedByGrace3

    SavedByGrace3 Whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved Supporter

    +2,147
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  4. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Dissident

    +3,293
    New Zealand
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    If you want emissions regulated so badly let it happen through the democratic process instead of a unaccountable bureaucratic agency.
     
  5. Pommer

    Pommer CoPcEtiC SkEpTic Supporter

    +6,045
    United States
    Deist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  6. Goonie

    Goonie Not so Mystic Mog. Supporter

    +9,196
    United Kingdom
    Atheist
    Single
    Yes good news if your in favour of murder suicide. Otherwise not.
     
  7. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Dissident

    +3,293
    New Zealand
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    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?
     
  8. Pommer

    Pommer CoPcEtiC SkEpTic Supporter

    +6,045
    United States
    Deist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  9. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Dissident

    +3,293
    New Zealand
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    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: Jun 30, 2022
  10. rturner76

    rturner76 Domine non-sum dignus Supporter

    +2,994
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Green
    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.
     
  11. The IbanezerScrooge

    The IbanezerScrooge I can't believe what I'm hearing...

    +2,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Democrat

    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.
     
Loading...