Democratic states challenging the Trump Administration’s redo of the Obama CO2 emissions regulations should be careful what they sue for.

From The GWPF

Date: 18/08/19  Editorial, The Wall Street Journal

Their lawsuit could backfire and undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate carbon emissions.

Twenty-two Democratic state Attorneys General and seven cities this week asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the Trump EPA’s CO2 emission rules for coal plants. The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to implement the “best system of emission reduction” for pollutants, which the agency has traditionally applied to individual power plants.

The Obama EPA went further and required states to re-engineer their electric grids by replacing all coal and eventually natural gas with wind and solar. The Supreme Court in 2016 stopped the Obama power grab from being implemented as it likely exceeded the EPA’s legal authority and unconstitutionally commandeered the states.

The result is that federal CO2 emission standards for power plants have been nonexistent. Last month the Trump EPA issued new regulations requiring states to implement the “best system of emission reduction” by making on-site efficiency improvements at coal plants. The rule gives states flexibility and won’t force them to prematurely close plants.

Yet Democratic states complain in announcing their lawsuit that the “EPA’s rule rolls-back [the Obama] limits and will have virtually no impact on these emissions prolonging the nation’s reliance on polluting, expensive coal power plants and obstructing progress of states toward clean, renewable, and affordable electricity generation.” This is false in every respect.

Full article here.

62 thoughts on “Democratic states challenging the Trump Administration’s redo of the Obama CO2 emissions regulations should be careful what they sue for.

    • Nothing wrong with the link per se (and here I don’t recommend doing google search ‘perse in english’ while using a free wi-fi in a hotel situated in helsinki) but we would like to have two things: text ‘paywalled’ beside the link, and if possible, less paywalled target pages.

      Though I prefer paywalled pages to sites that employ dubious geolocation enabled marketing methods aiming to free oneself of one’s credit card number, and eventually, credit via frawdulent use of aforementioned.

      On the topic. I hope people do not realize how much Trump achieves by making his opponents too triggered to think. Some call it 4d chess. I call it instinct and reason, with a distinct populist style.

    • Agree with Tom.

      Wouldn’t be surprised if well over 50% of WUWT viewers who accessed the paywall site simply abandoned the attempt to read the article.

      • WSJ is a strange site. Putting a link on a page hits the paywall – but a search for the article title and then clicking on it from the search results (at least Google and Bing), and you don’t hit the paywall. Probably some nutty idea about “discoverability.”

    • I agree. the WSJ wants me to pay for a years subscription just to read one article. Please don’t send us to sites that want a years subscription to see one article.

  1. It was the Bush EPA that determined CO2 was a pollutant. So remember to make sure your politicians are actually in favor of the policies under the party they are running.

    • First make sure your politicians have a rein on the EPA. Currently they don’t, that’s the problem.

      It seemed like a good idea when Nixon created the EPA and there was some work for the EPA to do.
      But now it has morphed into an unaccountable monster that goes looking for people and corporations to punish, irrespective of the need.

      Nothing worse than people with a solution looking for a problem to apply their solution to.

      • “Nothing worse than people with a solution looking for a problem to apply their solution to.”

        I know what’s worse! Bureaucrats looking for solutions to keep their annual budget or worse, having their department closed for lack of a real problem to fit their solution.

        • In the UK private sector, bureaucratic efficiency is generally measured by how few a number of staff it takes to get the job done! In the public sector, bureaucratic efficiency, & departmental status, arises from how many staff one has under ones authority, the bigger the staff number, the more important you are! Hasn’t changed in years & probably never will!

          When I used work in the public sector/Civil Service, the technical staff, scientists, engineers, technicians, etc., always got paid a little bit more than the bureaucrats on the grounds that they had hard earned technical qualifications! Then in the 1980s that changed slightly, with the administration people getting equal or slighlty more money in their pay packets. The fear was always that the tail would end up wagging the dog, not as it should be, (Hitchhikers’ Guide/Yes Minister, anyone?) I fear that that is now the case in many areas of British life! You’re next my dear Colonial cousins!

      • I have worked on many ” teams” (kaizen, etal) and found that 95% of any problem resolution involves justifiable effort at a reasonable cost, the “lower hanging fruit”.
        The last 5% usually requires immense effort and cost for minimal improvement. In industry the “team” is disolved and everyone returns to their jobs. In government a bureaucracy is created and grows beyond its original scope and budget.

    • Bush, Obama. Birds of the same feather. Both have date with GITMO. Hopefully they will do the 13 step dance.

    • Several states sued the Bush EPA (Massachusetts vs EPA), claiming that the USEPA had the right to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court agree in 2007. The Bush EPA did nothing. The Obama EPA did declare CO2 as a pollutant in 2009.

      • Wasn’t the governor of Massachusetts a republican that allowed the Stat’s EPA to sue the Federal EPA? I believe he ran for Presidency against Obama and is now a Senator from Utah. The Federal EPA didn’t fight very hard. They agreed with the State’s EPA.

        • Again these states want the rule in place at the federal level for the political cover and subsidies dollars for the economic damage that their “renewable” (it’s not renewable energy) leftist policies will cause.

  2. They KNOW it is “false in every respect” and they do not care. Everything they stated is not the point of the lawsuit. It’s about politics.

    • Exactly. A trace gas cannot run the climate.

      CO2 emitted IR is equivalent to -79 deg C and thus cannot warm anything on Earth. It’s other two IR frequencies are about 250 and 1200 deg C, way far from reality.

      The CO2 that is supposed to be warming the surface is in the upper tropical troposphere (-17 deg C) and the surface is (15 deg C). A cool object cannot warm a warmer object. Simple thermodynamics.

      CO2 and water vapor are NOT greenhouse gases, which is a made-up term. They are radiative gases and, during the day, they are saturated with energy, absorbing and emitting and having no effect. It is at night that these gases, with no energy input, cool the atmosphere as radiative gases. This is why the air chills so quickly after sundown.

      Since the whole CO2 greenhouse gas meme is junk science, it is easy to show that it is a reality failure.

      • “Charles Higley August 19, 2019 at 1:02 pm

        A cool object cannot warm a warmer object. Simple thermodynamics.”

        By your logic, laser beams are unable to do things, like engrave diamonds, cut steel, etc.

        Your thermodynamics claim overlooks energy transmitted by radiation.

        • With a laser, more and more energy is added until it emits light through a process of optical amplification based on the stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation…Light Amplification through Stimulated Emission of Radiation. That really is not how CO2 accepts and reradiates the IR it receives. Of the six degrees of freedom in the CO2 molecule, only the three translation modes are involved in heat transfer. CO2 has a net cooling effect on the atmosphere.

        • I’m no chemist, but I know this is wrong just from the words. The rules of thermodynamics do not “overlook” anything. The radiation of a cooler body can not warm a warmer body even an infinitesimal small amount.
          Kind of inconvenient, wouldn’t you say?

      • Charles, radiatively excited CO2 collisionally decays in the lower atmosphere. It converts radiative energy into kinetic energy.

        • And ultimately heat, which the water vapour in the atmosphere dissipates to space and then comes back down as extra rain.

        • IR causes vibrational excitement. Not every interaction with a vibrating CO2 molecule will cause a translation increase in other molecules.

          Besides the specific heat of CO2 accounts for IR. There is no notation in specific heat tables that say you must use the forcing equation if
          IR involved.

    • Read the link I put in above to the more complete article. Apparently some strategists are concerned that the current suit will open the door and allow the Supreme Court to revisit the MA vs. EPA case, reverse the ruling and throw out the Endangerment finding.

  3. Boomerang, how apt. It is more likely that an aborigine will down one of the Aussie AF’s Lockheed Martin F-35 with his highly polished boomerang than the humans reversing global warming by going carbon free.

  4. 30 years of total nonsense education is hard to overcome. We need a Donald Trump scientist to expose it, and I don’t mean hired by him but SOMEONE with balls.

  5. If these Democrat-dominated states believe they are saving the planet, then why don’t they just go ahead and impose restrictions in their own states? They could fight against the Trump administrations changing of the Obama Rules on the side, but what’s to stop them from changing the rules in their own states, as they see it, to save the planet? I think all Watts readers would take the appropriate steps if they believed it was instrumental in saving the planet, because, after all, it’s the whole planet! A little hypocrisy in plain view here?

    • They could restrict travel by state employees for example and forbid them to collect frequent flyer and hotel rewards points.

    • When I first read the article this is exactly what I thought.

      This does not prevent the states from doing the “socially correct thing” per their own bloviating.

      However, without the EPA ruling they have no cover politically. They need the scapegoat, “It was Federally Mandated.” Perhaps, I’m ***rolling my eyes*** just being cynical.

    • They tried it in Oregon this summer by trying to pass emergency legislation (so the voters could put it up for a referendum) but the Republicans left town so that there was no quorum.

  6. Bob and Robert
    Lets take the CO2 out of politics and instead of it being a pollutant, turn the CO2 into good paying full time jobs and money.
    America needs a lot of energy to be produced if we are going to continue to live the lifestyles we are accustomed to. America has over 600 years of coal available. Lets use it to make electricity and concrete.
    Lets use our natural gas for building space heating and by industry to produce all those things we consume every day.
    Until we are all EV’s oil needs to be used to power our transportation.

    Using our energy wisely will keep us in energy for many generations, and this energy works 24/7.

    • I’ve proposed the same thing, except, I think LNG should be powering our vehicles, and oil needs to be used strictly for manufacturing and mass transit (trucks, trains, planes, boats, etc).

      • Dr. Deanster, Not that it matters because it will never happen, but compressed natural gas vehicles would be much better than LNG or EV vehicles.

        • Why burn gas to make electricity when you can just burn it in the vehicle to make it go, like my V8 Jeep?

    • Where can invest in your technology? Are you listed on any of the exchanges? Do you take cash?

  7. RE: “This is false in every respect.”
    Which very accurately describes 90% of modern progressive Leftist positions on everything. More like 97% of their positions on climate.

  8. We are witnessing history in the making here. For the first time in human history, a people, in this case, group of states, have complained and are suing over wanting MORE regulation. The climate koolade sure makes people cuckoo for cocoa puffs stupid.

  9. The states could do this, just like California. The state politicians simply want the cover story of “The federal government made us do it” when electric rates triple.

  10. Then there’s the inconvenient problem that the Clean Air Act and its later amendments authorize the EPA to regulate a specific list of air pollutants and carbon dioxide isn’t on the list. Why? Because it’s not an air pollutant. It’s an essential plant nutrient. Should be fun to see how this goes.

  11. Absent additional authorizing Congressional legislation signed by the President, the Obama EPA’s CPP was certainly unconstitutional. It was just a rather prominent example of Obama’s “pen and phone” violation of separation of powers. And unlike Obama’s illegal DACA (that illegal “dreamers” can stay) fiat, the CPP never went into effect because 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices put a Stay on it. That stay was Justice Antonin Scalia’s last signed order before he “went to sleep with the fish” in February 2016.

  12. The very first sentence in the very first article of the constitution says: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    So how is it that the EPA is able to write rules that carry the force of law without congressional involvement? Maybe because our elected Representatives and Senators don’t give a rat’s rear end about the constitution. That’s the root cause of the problem. EPA should not be able to create any regulations.

    • Congress, in it’s infinite wisdom decided to delegate some of it’s powers. They voted to create entities like the EPA, CFPB and the Federal Reserve.

      The EPA has been so infiltrated with Cultural Marxists and Socialist Justice Warriors, it would be better to reduce funding to zero and start over. Limit whatever replaces it to “advise and coordinate between the States”. Leave the “enforcement” to the DOJ, with moneys collected from rulings to go directly into Treasury.

      • It is true that rule-making and enforcement should be separated. Enforcement requires judgments to be made and power to be exerted. That is why judiciaries are independent of the political class. But the judiciary doesn’t make laws. The overall effect is a conversation between the two: “We want this result”, and “Then write it properly so everyone can understand.”

    • This is a hard conundrum to understand. However, the Constitution allows Congress to delegate the work and authority of implementing a law to the Executive branch. This keeps laws from being overly complicated and “one size fits all”. However, Congress does retain the ability to oversee or use “oversight” to monitor the Executive and modify laws when needed.

  13. ”Democratic states complain in announcing their lawsuit that the “EPA’s rule rolls-back [the Obama] limits and will have virtually no impact on these emissions prolonging the nation’s reliance on polluting, expensive coal power plants and obstructing progress of states toward clean, renewable, and affordable electricity generation.”

    : The Democratic States won’t miss their “settle and sue” money printing machines.

  14. Leading a F-35, to hit it in the air intake with a boomerang is gonna be tough.

    So the drone free zones must also be upgraded to boomerang free zones.

    As they should already be bird strikes free zones.

  15. Leading a F-35, to hit it in the air intake with a boomerang is gonna be tough.

    So the drone free zones must also be upgraded to boomerang free zones.

    As they should already be bird strikes free zones.

    And laser pointer free zones.

    What’s next.

Comments are closed.