The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Round 2 gets started in the only lawsuit that can derail the Biden EPA’s PM2.5 railroad. Read the opening brief of appellants Stan Young and Tony Cox.
There are two America’s, the real one, and the delusional “precautionary principal” one that makes manufacturing illegal. One believes there are two genders, adheres to the scientific method, cost benefit analysis, quantitative analysis not qualitative analysis only, the rule of law and The Constitution. The other one is simply “woke”. Go woke, go broke.
From page one (1) of the “Brief filed in response to another of Biden’s day one executive actions:
And during the prior administration, the Committee had concluded that the science did not support strengthening the standard. The new EPA Administrator decided that he could not risk that happening again.
He therefore promptly fired all seven members of the Committee and restocked it with six academics who have received a total of more than $126 million in EPA grants and a statutorily required state official, all of whom agree that the particulate-matter standard should be strengthened.
The newly reconstituted Committee then unanimously recommended that EPA make the standard more stringent, and the Agency proposed a rule that would do so.
Then of course there is the science which has yet to show that these PM2.5s are in any way harmful. Show us the patients, is often the first step. There are claims that these particles “could” enter cells, but forgets that the body is very efficient at removing particulate matter from our lungs. If the PM2.5 is carbon, it is probably “activated carbon” and therefore will tend to collect harmful matter from cells making it inactive. In fact it may become the next wonder treatment, but I rather doubt this is a good line of study as they would first have to get into cells. Duh!
we wre living in the age of insanity
You’d have to be a lawyer to read and understand this
I’m not a lawyer but, to me, this appears to be mostly written in plain English.
I agree with Richard that “you’d have to be a lawyer to read this”, but I also agree that it’s mostly written in plain English”. The problem is that it starts with page after page of legal falderal, unrelated to the argument. I’ll bet that most of the lawyers ignore that, too.
A good technical report starts with a summary and conclusions that can be read in several minutes. Legal arguments don’t. Shame on them.
I’ll wait for the Cliff Notes
I am not a lawyer, either, but I have served on the staff of a federal advisory committee, and if the brief is accurate, the EPA really cleaned house and stacked the deck in it favor with the new members. An overwhelming representation of EPA contractors, none of whom represented the views of the regulated industries, a Saturday night massacre of the committee that did not follow it’s master, and the inclusion of all sorts of non relevant issues make a powerful case. The Supremes might have fun with this one.
The brief certainly makes a strong case that EPA violated the laws as enacted in their rush to impose unnecessarily burdensome new rules. The current makeup of SCOTUS, where this case is likely to end up by next year, suggests that the Bidenistas will not prevail in their lawlessness. Good for America.
The only purpose of Obama’s EPA PM2.5 rule was to make coal fired power plants too expensive to operate, thus forcing owners to shut them down. Which they did. The utility I worked for at the time immediately began preparing to shut down six coal fired plants. They added three CCTG units to replace them. In most areas of the U.S. where these power plants are/were the typical particulate is still over ten times the allowable EPA limit. The rule made each Coal power plant into a enormously expensive HEPA Filter! The exhaust had to be 1/10 the particulate of what the combustion air was. Shutting down these plants made no significant difference in the typical 2.5 P in the area.
The Administrative Procedures Act is a joke within the US bureaucratic regulatory agencies. They all have work arounds to allow themselves to make new law as they see fit. The process is simple:
It, of course, does not matter if industry negative comments are backed up by data and carefully conducted research. The fact that they come from industry makes them automatically biased and easily dismissed. The fact that the data and reports the agency uses to justify the new regulations come from agency funded research only means that they are completely unbiased and credible. This is how the DC deep swamp works and it is irredeemably corrupt.
You might be inclined to agree that DC is no longer a Swamp. Beginning with the 2008 presidential election it has devolved into the current Sewer.
Swamp, sewer, deep state, whatever you want to call it, Congress has completely abdicated their oversight responsibilities. Now that a majority of the population is dependent on government handouts, there isn’t much hope of reversing the situation at the ballot box. The leftists will be in control until the economy collapses.
You must be logged in to post a comment.