The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).The primary plaintiff of the case is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; he is joined by attorney generals from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Morrissey’s office is also representing the interests of two coal companies in the case. The EPA, backed by the administration of President Joe Biden, is being represented by the U.S. Solicitor General. … In a 2007 Supreme Court case, the Justices ruled 5-4 in Massachusetts vs. EPA that the agency has to limit greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if they’re a threat to public health. In a 2009 endangerment finding, the EPA determined carbon dioxide was indeed a threat to public health. Based on that Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration couldn’t simply kill the CPP; it needed to have a plausible replacement to it.
The plaintiffs argue that decisions around emissions should be at the hands of elected officials and not the EPA. … What the court decides will have huge implications for the scope of federal administrative power and climate change policy.
#
By: Admin – Climate DepotJune 29, 2022 8:48 AM
BY WEATHERBOY TEAM METEOROLOGIST
On the very last day of court opinions being issued in their current session, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a new climate change related ruling, bringing an end to a string of high-profile cases announced in recent days. The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The case was last heard by the Court in February and it is expected to be among the last rulings announced on Wednesday morning as the court wraps up work prior to summer recess.
The primary plaintiff of the case is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; he is joined by attorney generals from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Morrissey’s office is also representing the interests of two coal companies in the case.
The EPA, backed by the administration of President Joe Biden, is being represented by the U.S. Solicitor General.
Ultimately, the plaintiffs are arguing that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to regulate power plant emissions and that Congress should be granted that authority. The plaintiffs argue that decisions around emissions should be at the hands of elected officials and not the EPA.
The EPA responds to the argument by saying that the Court should not read into the text an artificial restriction because any qualification would be directed at the states, not the federal agency.
What the court decides will have huge implications for the scope of federal administrative power and climate change policy.
The Clean Air Act of 1963 was the first federal legislation regarding air pollution control. It established a federal program within the U.S. Public Health Service and authorized research into techniques for monitoring and controlling air pollution. Four years later, in 1967, the Air Quality Act was enacted to expand federal government activities. Specifically, the 1967 updated permitted the government to pursue enforcement proceedings as it related to interstate air pollution transport. As part of the process, the federal government for the first time conducted significant, widespread ambient monitoring studies and stationary source inspections to understand the release and movement of pollutants into the air.
However, the move to further regulate clean air was pushed by Republican President Richard Nixon. On December 31, 1970, Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, a landmark piece of legislation that led to significant public health and environmental benefits around the country.
“I think that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations of America,” said President Nixon at the signing.
President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, with a focus on clean air and eventually clean water. In his 1970 State of the Union Address, President Nixon said, “The great question of the seventies is, shall we surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land, and to our water?”
Since becoming law, the Clean Air Act has seen significant amendments added over time, with 1977 and 1990 increasing the authority and responsibility of the federal government.
After the Clean Air Act’s first 20 years, in 1990, according to the EPA, it prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and almost 700,000 cases of chronic bronchitis were avoided. From 1990 to 2010, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants decreased by more than 41 percent, while the Gross Domestic Product increased by more than 64 percent.
In recent years, some have wanted to expand the scope of the Clean Air Act to tackle climate change. While the science remains inconclusive, many scientists believe there is a link between air pollution and an evolving global climate, with some expressing the theory that carbon dioxide, the primary byproduct of gas and diesel engines and fossil-fueled power plants, is impacting global temperatures around Earth.
In the 1970 law, the EPA was required to issue new “standards of performance” for every newly constructed “stationary sources” of pollution, which include power plants. All regulations of power plants must undergo this process and the federal government partners with state governments to ensure EPA standards are met through coordinated enforcement measures.
In 2015, President Barack Obama’s administration set the Clean Power Plan within the Clean Air Act. The Clean Power Plan (CPP) set the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from U.S. power plants. The intent of President Obama’s plan was to rein-in power plant pollution and speed transition away from fossil fuels, citing climate change as the primary reason for the the updated rule.
In 2019, President Donald Trump’s administration killed the Clean Power Plan. Then-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler criticized the Obama policy, saying, “The CPP would have asked low- and middle-income Americans to bear the costs of the previous administration’s climate plan.” Wheeler added, “One analysis predicted double-digit electricity price increases in 40 states under the CPP.”
In a 2007 Supreme Court case, the Justices ruled 5-4 in Massachusetts vs. EPA that the agency has to limit greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if they’re a threat to public health. In a 2009 endangerment finding, the EPA determined carbon dioxide was indeed a threat to public health. Based on that Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration couldn’t simply kill the CPP; it needed to have a plausible replacement to it.
With the CPP repealed, the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule was put in its place. The ACE rule establishes emission guidelines for states to use when developing plans to limit carbon dioxide at their coal-fired electric generating units.
The ACE rule was short lived, however. On January 19, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the Affordable Clean Energy rule and remanded to the EPA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
At this time, President Biden and the EPA hasn’t revived President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, saying they want to formulate their own regulations for power plants.
Before a new rule could be created though, West Virginia and other Plaintiffs brought the matter before the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court could agree with West Virginia, putting climate change policy out of the EPA’s hands and into that of Congress and/or individual states to do what they feel is best for their voters interests. Such a decision would kill President Biden’s ambitious plans to make the U.S. power sector completely free of carbon pollution by 2035. With Congress unable to move along any bipartisan policy dealing with air pollution, any decision by the Supreme Court to restrict the President’s administration and EPA from regulating greenhouses would lead to action for now.
The Supreme Court could decide to look narrowly at the Clean Air Act’s language about the EPA’s authority of power plants. In this case, it may provide an avenue for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas pollution through something other than the Clean Air Act.
Either way, the Supreme Court’s ruling will be watched carefully by everyone tracking the future of carbon dioxide emissions in America.
#
Hopefully at some point Climate Change Science will be tested in a court of law. This unfortunately is not the right case. Can’t wait for that day to come.
Been done several times already. https://niwa.co.nz/news/niwa%E2%80%99s-climate-science-vindicated-in-court-of-appeal
The colluuuusion clown appears. I suppose you believe Trump grabbed the steering wheel from the back of a Presidential limo too 😉
Trump must have really long arms. Maybe the longest ever, probably the best longest arms in history, everybody says so.
just being curious
details
In all fairness, the event took place in one of the WH SUVs, not the limo.
Still, the story about lunging over the seat is still pretty implausible.
(The WH SUV fleet are all heavily armored and much higher and wider than the normal GM SUV, but I haven’t been able to find out if there is a glass partition like the limo.)
That is NOT what the sworn testimony before the J6 committee was. Hutchinson specifically referred to it as “the beast” meaning the presidential Limo.
It was only after the actual video of the day was reviewed that everyone, including the WP and Cheney changed their claims about what vehicle the POTUS was actually riding in that day.
It is obvious that this was all canned and the J6 committee screwed up prepping their “witness”.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/cheneyhugswitness.jpg
Fact is that Hutchinson presented no real evidence in her “testimony”, only hearsay. And has lied about taking dictation for Trump.
I don’t know about the presidential party SUV’s but as I recall the armored Suburbans used by the US military brass in Lebanon that I saw had a very thick partition of “bullet proof” glass between the front and back. They were called “Armadillos”.
Firstly, Hutchinson testified that the story that Trump attempted to grab the wheel of the vehicle and scuffled with a secret service agent was told to her by Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato, and she further testified that the secret service agent in question (Engel) was in the room with them listening at the time that Ornato told her.
The story may be correct and it may be incorrect, but neither of the other two people present have been questioned about it under oath, at least as far as we know, so there is no particularly good reason at the moment to be convinced that it is untrue. If Ornato and Engel deny it under oath, then that might be different.
Secondly, and more importantly, although that particular story was technically hearsay (though recounted while the person involved was present and listening), the story was in no way the most important issue brought up in Hutchinson’s testimony, and the question of whether the vehicle was correctly described as an SUV, or a limo, or a Chevy Suburban is entirely trivial.
If you believe that Hutchinson presented no real evidence and that the bulk of her testimony was hearsay, then you evidently did not listen to her testimony. I watched the entire testimony, and neither of those two statements is true.
There is no question of the credibility of the witness. She has an outstanding professional reputation, which is how she quickly rose to the position of principal aide to the White House Chief of Staff, and she was a loyal Trump supporter throughout his entire administration who has no political axe to grind. Moreover, Hutchinson was entirely tranparent throughout her testimony about what she actually witnessed, what she heard from other people, and what she simply couldn’t answer.
The relevant point she recounted about this episode was being told Trump was infuriated when informed that he would not be allowed to go to the Capitol, and that he scuffled with his driver in a furious attempt to go anyway. Obsessing over whether Hutchinson perfectly recalls being told the exact model of car in which this happened is simply stupid.
The incident described came about, incidentally, after Trump was informed that the crowd he ginned up had a high potential for violence, and that multiple protesters were being found near the Capitol with weapons. It also came about after Cipollone, Trump’s White House counsel, told Hutchinson and Meadows not to let Trump go down to the Capitol under any circumstances because if Trump went, “We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable.”
The crimes Cipollone were so concerned with presumably included not just incitement of a riot, but also obstruction of a congressional proceeding- in this specific case the lawful certification of an elected President.
Other parts of this plan of course included trying to submit slates of entirely fake electors to compete with the slates of electors lawfully certified by all the states, as well as pressuring the Vice President to somehow try to overrule the democratically expressed will of the voters by refusing to certify the election- all things that Trump’s lawyers and every sane person around him seem to have told him were entirely illegal).
I point out as well, in case you are incapable of understanding this obvious point, that Hutchinson’s testimony forms part of a much larger story about what the President knew and what his intentions were leading up to and on the day of January 6th. Her testimony complements all the other testimony we have heard so far from other relevant witnesses (by “we,” of course, I refer to people who actually listen to the witnesses and consider what they have to say, rather than to read mischaracterizations of the hearings on e.g. Breitbart).
As for Ornato and Engel, if they would like to dispute Hutchinson’s account, then they should go in front of the Congressional Committee and testify about it under oath and under penalty of perjury, as Hutchinson did. I would guess that the Justice Department may also come knocking asking them to do the same thing. There is no penalty for lying to a reporter, or in having anonymous third parties whisper to reporters about what you did or didn’t witness. If the conversation Hutchinson reported didn’t actually happen, then they need only say so under oath. It wouldn’t make a lot of difference to the overall case being made, but they are welcome to try to set the record straight if they would like to.
It is a POLITICAL shit show and everyone with a few working brain cells and an ounce of integrity knows it. These “hearings” have nothing to do with finding the truth. They are taxpayer funded political theater with several motives.
There is no evidence that the POTUS was involved in directing or even desiring the demonstrators to trespass in Congress. And that is why you failed to answer the most important question. The POTUS obviously believes he was screwed in the election and so do I and many others. So what crime did he commit?
You can write all you want but the vast majority of the people understand what this is about. Just look at the pole numbers. The RCP average. The lowest very numbers trusting the news media.
And those people that are seeing this shit show are suffering under an ever growing burden of inflation and an economy that is quickly going south of even the Peanut Farmer’s time. The only citizens alive today that have seen worse are those few still alive that experienced the great depression. And what is the Senate, the press, and the political class in general concentrating on?
It is pathetic. And it isn’t going to work.
Before I reply to the more substantive questions, I point out to you that Democrats’ biggest fear should be that DeSantis, or pretty much anyone else, runs in 2024. Trump is likely the only Republican so toxic that he could actually lose to Joe Biden, as he did two years ago when millions of Republicans and Independents voted against him.
As for the evidence that Trump was desirous of, and involved in, directing rioters to trespass in Congress, of course this exists and it emerges in the hours of testimony presented so far. It may well emerge in even more detail as more witnesses testify. The evidence only “doesn’t exist” if you never watch the testimony.
The list of what crimes Trump may have committed seems fairly long at this point, although the Justice Department will obviously decide ultimately on what to charge him with. Seditious conspiracy, obstruction of a congressional proceeding, criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, and now potentially witness tampering come to mind. Again, this is all emerging from an increasing amount of witness testimony in the congressional investigation, available to anyone who wants to watch it, and which appears to be mirroring similar investigations by the Justice Department.
It makes no difference whatsoever what Trump did or did not believe about the election with respect to his legal culpability. Beyond the fact that the Justice Department, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, state boards of elections, state bureas of investigations, etc. all investigated his many conspiracy theories and unanimously informed him that they were bogus and without evidence, Trump had a chance to present his case, such as it was, in front of the courts.
Courts, you may note, are how disputes get resolved in America. Trump lost 61 of those cases, none of them having enough evidence even to allege fraud, and the states all lawfully certified their slates of electors (despite Trump insisting that some of them ignore their sworn duty to do so, based on conspiracy theories for which he never provided any evidence, as described clearly by the Republican witnesses you seem unaware of).
Having lost his cases legally, Trump, Giuliani, and Eastman seem to have cooked up a bizarre scheme in which they would simply make up slates of bogus alternate electors to compete with the lawfully certified electors, and they would then pressure the VP to somehow pretend as if there wasn’t a clear winner of the election and refuse to do his Constitutional duty to certify the new president.
Since everyone around them appears to have pointed out that this scheme would be massively illegal, Trump also ousted his Attorney General and seems to have attempted to oust the new acting Attorney General as well in order to install Jeffrey Clark, an unqualified environmental lawyer, as AG, based on the fact that Clark, unlike every one of the Associate Attorneys General Trump asked first, was willing to state that the election was fraudulent, despite having no evidence on which to base that statement.
All of this and more emerges clearly from the testimony presented, all of which, as far as I recall, has come from lifelong Republicans. Trust in the media is not required in order to listen to the witness testimony and consider it. Nor is it important to love Joe Biden or to think that the current Administration is doing a great job. An understanding and appreciation of the Constitution, basic civics, and rationality, on the other hand, together with a desire for presidents to be selected peacefully by voters and not violently through intimidation by a mob of imbeciles, are all quite helpful.
BREAKING: Multiple sources including one who was at the WH on Jan 6 tell me Cipollone was not there in the am when Hutchinson testified she spoke with him. J6 Cmtes is aware of this discrepancy & are ignoring media inquiries about it. Seems she made up the entire conversation
Have no idea what you’re referring to, but based simply on what you presented, it seems she mixed up the time she spoke with him.
Everyone else that was in the vehicle at the time says it didn’t happen. For some reason Pelosi didn’t schedule any of them to speak.
It does not really matter what Trump did or not in the 6th of the January.
What it matters is that Congress has no any authority what so ever to investigate President Trump anymore, about his term in office, or prior to that.
That act actually consist as a clear infringement of the USA constitution… on the immunity of the President.
It actually as it stands, it is only an unconstitutional clown show in the Capitol Hill.
cheers
I fail to see why Trump demanding to be driven to the Congressional building is such a big deal.
Congress can investigate whatever it likes, and presidents have no immunity from anything. You are confusing a president with a king, and apparently confusing the USA with…. Russia?
I think you are very wrong.
A President of USA can be still investigated after his term in office, for acts during that term, but that is not under the Capitol Hill jurisdiction.
Like saying that Obama can not be investigated anymore by the Congress for any acts during his term in office or prior to that.
I think you know not what you talking about.
Reacher51
By the way.
I am sure that you know not that Hillary Clinton is already fully entitled to immunity from investigation, even from Capitol Hill, about the case she was investigated by FBI via the grace of Loretta’s DOJ.
Thanks to that investigation, as done and handled then, happening to be illegal and unconstitutional. (intentionally)
So there is one Queen, as you would put it there, for you, which Capitol Hill can not investigate… in the proposition of her term in office.
And she actually did fail to make it at the high of a President, though.
But still immune from Capitol Hill investigation, on the case and territory concerning her legal constitutional right of immunity.
Fingers crossed you get this, at least in principle.
Congress is not investigating Trump in order to prosecute him. They are investigating Jan. 6th in order to understand what happened and who was involved. If they find evidence of crimes, then they will make a criminal referral to the Justice Department, and the JD will make its own decision on whether to prosecute. The JD has its own parallel investigations going on in this case as well.
You, on the other hand, appear in need of a referral to a psychiatrist. Maybe to one in the “Capitol Hill jurisdiction?”
As I said you know nothing what you talking about, either by pretense or by real… but that ain’t a concern for me.
Good luck with your nightmare.
Thanks. Good luck with your GED.
Now six more women (or is it womxns?) have come out and said that Trump grabbed limo steering wheels.
Then it must be true, after all you must believe all wahmen (excepts the ones that make accusations against Bill Clinton, those you aren’t allowed to believe).
Are you a credentialed biologist? How do we know they are women?
(/sarc for the lack of a sarcasm font)
Jussie saw it, too.
That is awesome
“ suppose you believe Trump grabbed the steering wheel from the back of a Presidential limo too”
I have no idea. Hopefully we will get to hear from the agents involved. But you have to admit some of the other stuff coming out of the Jan 6 investigation paints Trump as a complete idiot and a man out of control on the day. And this from people in his inner circle. But you will dismiss it like you always do.
You are an idiot. We had awesome policies for all Americans and you turds threw it away. You suffer from TDS but then again you are a moron who believes in Russia Colluuuusion.
If your going to troll.you need.tonraise the bar.
“Unless the decision maker has followed a clearly improper process, the Court will be reluctant to adjudicate on matters of science and substitute its own inexpert view of the science if there is a tenable expert opinion.” And “unless the Trust can point to some defect in NIWA’s decision-making process or show that the decision was clearly wrong in principle or in law, this Court will not intervene. This Court should not seek to determine or resolve scientific questions demanding the evaluation of contentious expert opinion.”
Perhaps the Court will wise up and simply throw out the case. If the “expert opinion” can’t resolve scientific questions certainly lay people, particularly judicial ones, can’t be expected to do so. The nature of the case can’t even be decided if “experts” can’t agree on what is being argued.
“This Court should not seek to determine or resolve scientific questions demanding the evaluation of contentious expert opinion.””
thank you making my point. The courts will not rule on science….
New Zealand?
Morticia Arden and 5 million lockdowners?
Right
“New Zealand?
Morticia Arden and 5 million lockdowners?
Right”
Worked for us….
Not in the USA.
Don’t be a silly Simon – the NIWA case wasn’t a case about climate change ‘science’, it was a very narrow ruling on NIWA’s presentation of adjusted temperature records for New Zealand. In actual fact all that the ruling states is that the temperature record is in line with other international standards and similar datasets, which is itself a damning indictment of the way these things are done. Please supply a link to an actual court case in which the basic tenets of climate change ‘science’ are challenged, if you can.
Ether way it was a humiliation for the CCC and good job too. I recall they had some so called experts who made complete fools of themselves.
“In making his decision in favour of NIWA, Justice Venning noted that at least two of the people representing the Coalition at court did not have scientific qualifications in the field of climate science. On that basis, he ruled that evidence presented by Terry Dunleavy, a former journalist who was a founding member of the trust was inadmissible. He said: Dunleavy “has no applicable qualifications” and “his interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert”. Justice Venning also questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modelling and statistical analyst whose “general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science”.
Tim Lambert writing in ScienceBlogs said “The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn’t made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand.”
Before you go for your lap of honour for that comment – just consider how many activists and spokespeople for climate ‘science’ have now been ruled out of giving evidence – Naomi Oreskes, Michael Mann, Al Gore and David Suzuki to name 4 and I could probably name a lot more.
Haha ruled out … you have to be kidding. They are ruled out in climate denier world, but in the real world, they are very much respected.
As you yourself pointed out – they have “no applicable qualifications” and their “…interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify (them) as an expert.”
Can’t have it both ways Simon – disqualify one, disqualify all.
“In 2012, the High Court declined all claims and ruled that the Coalition pay NIWA’s costs. In his decision, Justice Venning said: “I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology.”[9][10] The Coalition was ordered to pay NIWA $89,000 in costs after losing the case. When the Coalition refused to pay, NIWA pursued liquidation.
In short… The CCC brought the case against NIWA and lost because NIWA’s methods were sound. I’d call that a win for science and a loss for the amateur muck rakers wouldn’t you?
As I stated above, the court did not find that NIWA’s method’s were sound, just that they were in accordance with “internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology” – in other words, NIWA does it the same way as do other organisations around the world, which might be quite damning for all concerned. As with other courts in other countries they have excused themselves from supporting or rejecting a scientific theory, something they admit they are not trained or allowed to do.
“…which might be quite damning for all concerned. .”
Well if it is so damning how come no climate science denier has taken the likes of NASA or NOAA to court to challenge their data? One simple reason, they would be slaughtered like the Climate Change Coalition was…. and it would be a public humiliation. So they stay in places like this, beating their chests, telling anyone who will listen that the data is corrupt.
I do not think the SC will be judging the science but rather the legality of who can make these decisions.
Exactly, the court has already said on several occasions that no court is capable of adjudicating science as they may only judge the law and its application.
Court of Law does not and can not do verdicts in validity of science, especially SCOTUS.
But it can decide in maters of the law, applied or to be applied.
For example there is a SCOTUS verdict since the 2007 authorizing EPA as the authority to act in consideration of CO2.
But many state legislatures have ignored that, and have legislated in their own, taking matters in their own hands, going over and above EPA.
In matter of fairness, justice and the constitution, that prior SCOTUS verdict must be removed, allowing the same for other states to handle this issue themselves, without having to ignore a SCOTUS verdict-decision.
Governments of such states must not be restricted anymore by the SCOTUS verdict, when other state governments are not already.
State Governments are actually prohibited by the 2007 SCOTUS verdict to regulate CO2, via State government orders while not supported by state legislation or a clear verdict by that state legislature.
Already the authority of EPA as per the SCOTUS verdict, happens to be not withstanding… legally and constitutionally.
All states must be on the same equality of opportunity in consideration of an issue or given matter, as per a verdict of SCOTUS.
That seems to be not the case anymore.
On top of it, no any plain fair ground for the oil companies in distributing their product in the territories of US… under such legal messed up condition… while some states do use tax payers funds to undermine such activity, and other states can not have any independent saying in the matter, unless considering to ignore a SCOTUS verdict.
Not much science there to be considered really.
🙂
cheers
Battle lines are drawn over mega oil pipeline for UgandaIn Uganda’s lush rift valley, a geological marvel, work is beginning on an infrastructure project of epic proportions: an oil pipeline stretching 900 miles to the Tanzanian coast. The East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline, or Eacop, will make Uganda an oil producer for the first time.
Go on, tell the Ugandan’s to stop destroying the planet.
“Britain may stop supplying gas to mainland Europe if hit by shortages…. “ Grauniad
It’s all a big farce.
About half of the UK’s gas comes from the North Sea, and a third is sourced from Norway. The rest is made up of imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) transported to the UK by sea from countries such as Qatar and the US. The Russian gas that the UK receives also comes in LNG form.
And both oil and gas from Libya as well I believe, which is why the current internal tussle over oil and gas refineries is having a knock-on effect outside of Libya.
“A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/29/electricity-rationing-the-shameful-hallmark-of-britains-green-energy-failure/
If the Supremes rule that congress must make the rules and not various Agencies, like the EPA, that will be both a step in the right direction and the beginning of a lot more Congressional Drama. When the Nixon Administration created the EPA they intended an Agency that cleaned up dangerously bad pollution, and, more-or-les they succeeded. They did not intend to allow various Presidents to weaponize the EPA to simply appeal to their own voting block, they intended that the EPA would utilize Science to identify actual pollution sources and remedies. The Greening of the Earth suggests CO2 is not a pollutant.
Suggests?
I utilized “suggests” because the requirement of scientific proof needs to define all of the potentially relevant variables and their interaction, and that is difficult for natural earth systems.
they just have:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/supreme-court-ruling-reigns-epa-blow-bidens-extreme-climate-change-agenda/
Well, the previous majority in Mass.v EPA is gone, and Roberts will not be able to control the outcome.
We will miss badly the expertise of Jennifer Granholm (currently Energy Secretary) and her ilk in the EPA and other executive positions. Remember: Oil is the root of all evil.
“Either way, the Supreme Court’s ruling will be watched carefully by everyone tracking the future of carbon dioxide emissions in America.”
Meanwhile, regardless of what is decided, the CO2 channel keeps transmitting the output of the variable emitter. The atmosphere is the authentic model of its own performance, and anyone can watch its highly self-regulating operation as a heat engine. Grasp what is happening in these visualizations from NOAA’s GOES-East satellite, and lose the fear of non-condensing GHGs.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=48&dim=1
(For numbers-oriented readers, the color scale used for these visualizations of high-resolution sensing indicates the “brightness temperature” calculated from the radiance. The radiance at 50C on the scale is 13 times the radiance at -90C on the scale.)
It’s not a “trap.”
And the earth is not a greenhouse.
As far as I can tell, most legal experts agreed that Roe v. Wade was deficient in a legal sense. So, ignoring whether or not the policy implications were valid, it made sense for the Supreme Court to dump it. That gives me hope that it will similarly dump the EPA’s power to regulate CO2.
It makes sense for the court to similarly dump the EPA’s power to regulate things based on a supposed public health concern.
Cars cause many deaths. In theory, the EPA could ban cars as a public health hazard.
If you banned cars and trucks, that would crash the economy. In any event, the benefits they provide far exceed the harms. The decision on that belongs with elected legislators, not unaccountable bureaucrats.
I think that the position of THIS court is that the legislatures need to do their job and pass legislation rather than deferring to agencies just because they want to avoid controversial subjects that may lead to not being re-elected.
I would agree with that position and have hopes that is the way it will be going forward.
So basically it needs the courts to tell the politicians to step up and do the bloody job they are paid to do for once in their misbegotten career? Good, glad we got that sorted – now to make sure all of the politicians get the memo!
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court will deal with CO2 as the gas giving life to our Planet.
Hello: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming
Why not vote with your feet, there’s enough of you with a big spread of diversity and resources:
Do your own version of a Brexit
We had a similar sentiment in the 1860s and it was not a pleasant experience. I think we will try the political route first.
What happened in 1860 that is similar to present thus far?
The reference to Brexit is a reference to leaving the union. That is the 1860s all over again. Bloodiest war in US history for US forces.
Oh well, I thought the similarity stands to a degree between then and now, as the same perpetrators, libtard demorats governing the southern states then, decided to rally their armies and attack the federal army, and by doing so declaring war against federal army then and the federal USA.
When these days the same, the incarnation of the same, are rallying their armies, in causing anarchy via rioting, plundering, arson and violence, in daylight and darkness of the night… simply in an attempt to provoke and achieve the same as then.
The base motive and intention, the same… getting what they want by all means possible… these days going after the absolute power for control by destroying the USA constitution… regardless of anything else.
But now different than then, the power of their political and otherwise spreads to federal, wealth arena and public opinion arena, like never before, established via grand theft of tax dollars… over the years and decades.
How does this sound for a similarity?
cheers
If the U.S. Supreme Court decides that Congress should be in charge here, prepare for another meltdown by Democrats/liberals/the left. If anything goes against their “rule by decree” worldview they throw a temper tantrum.
Here in Massachusetts- I’m hoping the climatistas will do a mass suicide.
Normally I would agree, but they are already in meltdown after the Bruen (guns) and Dobbs (abortion) decisions. Add in the sensational J6 claim that Trump tried to carjack the presidential limo and today KETANJI BROWN JACKSON WILL BE THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE (how can she be sure?), and I just don’t know if they can crank the outrage-o-meter any higher.
I expect a good bit of today’s “news coverage” to be on Justice Brown Jackson and why we need three more SCOTUS justices just like her by next week.
from the article,
“After the Clean Air Act’s first 20 years, in 1990, according to the EPA, it prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and almost 700,000 cases of chronic bronchitis were avoided. From 1990 to 2010, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants decreased by more than 41 percent, while the Gross Domestic Product increased by more than 64 percent.”
64%… much to the dismay of the epa.
“No Lower Limit No Lower Threshold” fallacy strikes again!
Are we to believe the EPA gets reports from hospitals documenting the number of folks who DIDN’T die that day?
That standard has been abused by virtually every government and non profit (eg. American Heart Association) agency to justify unscientific regulations and guidelines despite that rule of thumb has been long discredited.
No one will argue that even small amounts of arsenic can kill, but ask a biologist how you would do if you were able to remove the minute amounts of rare metals including arsenic from your body. IT AIN’T LINEAR AND THERE IS A LOWER THRESHOLD!
Indeed. There is a well known effect, called hormesis, where a low dose of something, which would be harmful at a high dose, is actually beneficial.
Anyone who wants to invoke the linear no-threshold model should be forced to prove it applies in that particular situation. “Trust me, I’m an expert”, doesn’t cut it.
It doesn’t even apply to radiation, but it is the absolute standard in use in nuclear safety circles anyway. The problem, of course, is that the lower threshold seems to be different for each person it is measured on (after accidental exposures). The same exposure seems to have no effect on one person and is fatal in another. That drives regulators batty and they err on the side of no exposure.
No….our lakes, rivers, forests and farm lands need carbon to continue to support life!
The SCOTUS is on a very long summer vacation until October.
Unfortunately, the existing law is vague and open-ended. The Supreme Court is likely to say the law permits the EPA to do what it is doing. The antidote to bad laws is better laws. Unless you want an activist court making up the laws.
If a law is vague and open-ended, it can be found to be overbroad. That can cause it to be overturned.
Unlikely; if that were the case the court would have declined to hear the appeal. The question is just how far the court will go in scaling back the EPA and other federal agencies.
That was Chevron (when vague, defer to the agency). Thankfully, overturned.
Turley just disagreed with me saying that Chevron was not overturned. He understands this better than I do, but it does place some limits on Chevron.
“…a link between air pollution and an evolving global climate..”
Great example of Progressive “do gooders” twisting established and well understood definitions of common words to advance their causes.
“Pollution” in the original legislation was understood to be “dirty” air (noxious chemicals, particulate matter – e.g. smog) and later expanded to include chemical contamination of water.
CO2 of course is not a pollutant in the common understanding of the word and in that legislation. We all learned in 5th grade it is an odorless, tasteless gas necessary and beneficial for life on earth.
The article claims “in a 2009 endangerment finding, the EPA determined carbon dioxide was indeed a threat to public health.” In fact they disregarded their own rules and guidelines on how to conduct an endangerment finding and instead relied on the IPCC conclusion that CO2 was a dangerous pollutant, even though the IPCC was and is a POLITICAL not SCIENTIFIC organization.
Some think the EPA’s disregard for its own procedures in establishing that finding may be the chink in their armor.
If central government is always inclined to overreach, only the individual states can put on the brakes. Each state should decide and accept the consequences of their decision.
Which was why the founders, had Senators appointed by state governments. Making the Senate a popularly elected body was one of the two greatest constitutional mistakes made in the country.
The other was the income tax.
In Mass vs EPA the court found EPA COULD regulate CO2 not that is must regulate CO2.
I have seen this error in multiple articles on this case.
There is no requirement to regulate CO2. That is why the EPA went to the trouble of creating the GHG Finding of Endangerment. It gave them the basis for regulating CO2 and other GHG.
The court that allowed the EPA to regulate was flawed. The CO2 in the air can go up to 1000ppm and not kill anyone. Different people might develop breathing or respiratory problems, but millions of people are already have those while getting healthier by the flood of food plants getting higher CO2 would produce.
There is limited evidence that levels as low as 1000ppm can have affects on some people. To endanger people you need to get above 40,000 ppm.
now we see how far the Woke Mind Virus has penetrated
Just announced, 6-3 against EPA overreach
God bless DJT! Here’s a question, is there any Federal intervention in our lives that Sotomayor, Kagan and Souter wouldn’t be A-ok with?
I haven’t read the ruling and I haven’t seen any analysis discussing how expansive the ruling is. If SCOTUS went the entire distance to say Congress cannot delegate legislative authority to executive branch agencies, it will be a legal earthquake.
I just came across this on another website as well.
URL : https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
The above link contains
From the end of the (majority) Opinion (page 37), highlighting added by me (!) :
Neither the majority opinion, the dissents, or the separate concurrences mentioned the Chevron doctrine; instead the decision was centered on the major questions doctrine. Justice Kavenaugh’s concurrence joined by Justice Alito goes into great detail on how this doctrine constrains statutory “interpolation” by regulatory agencies.
This most likely is a legal earthquake; a lot of the existing regulatory edifice will come tumbling down before all the aftershocks end.
Hopefully, Alan, hopefully.
The Dobbs v. Jackson “Opinion” I linked to only has a solo “concurrence” written by Justice Gorsuch.
NB : That document contains zero instances of the string “interpolation”.
Please can you provide a reference (or, even better, a link), to a PDF file version of the “Justice Kavenaugh concurrence joined by Justice Alito” you had in mind when you wrote your comment, as I (at least) have no idea whatsoever of what you are referring to.
As Bamber Gasgoine used to say on University Challenge :
“Here is your starter for 10 …”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21
Supreme Court just released opinion limiting EPA.
They ruled, EPA lost. However, Kagan’s descent is very telling as it begins with all the talking points of the loons. And cited 6th assessment.
How typical of the left. They start with the assumption that there is a problem, and to them this proves that government has to solve the problem, and only government can solve the problem.
Then they continue to conclude that since there is a problem and only government can solve the problem, that this proves that government is entitled to do whatever it wants in order to solve this problem.
Anyone who disagrees doesn’t believe in the rule of law.
Speaking of Kagan’s descent, I’ve been wondering if she could go any lower.
Fox Business News is reporting that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit in the case of the EPA regulating CO2 emissions. The vote was 6-3.
Supreme Court deals Biden climate agenda serious blow with EPA decision | Fox Business
‘Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Chief Justice John Roberts said in the Court’s opinion. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”‘
Watch for hysterical feedback from climate alarmists on this.
Congress is the legislative branch of the government, not the EPA. If we allow federal agencies to make laws (or rules that carry the force of law) then we have unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats making laws that rule our lives. Then we no longer have a representative form of government. That’s unacceptable, not to mention unconstitutional. Let’s hope the court sees it that way.
That has been the goal from the beginning.
Apparently the court agreed.
This is a big one…… FOR THE WIN
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/06/30/breaking-supreme-court-delivers-a-great-win-curtailing-the-power-of-government-in-epa-case-n586704
A trifecta for the final week in June.
A major blow to gun regulations.
Striking down Roe v. Wade
A major blow against regulatory over reach
court ruling is wounderful. three great rulings in less than ten days. all happening just in time for independence day celebrations. oh the irony.
The states and there are a lot are right, no regulatory agency should have the power to make decisions that have a great impact on the population and country. Such power exerted by appointed officials can only result in the implementing of an agenda most likely for personal profit.
If the court favors a regulatory agency over the people they will have proven themselves to be irrelevant to justice.
In your face epa, greenie-weenies and carbonistas of all stripes!
Also today, SCOTUS announced they have accepted for review Moore v. Harper, concerning whether state courts can intervene in redistricting which is explicitly assigned to the legislature. More progressive gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, but so far at least no twerking in Dallas.