Supreme Court limits EPA global warming rules

The Supreme Court delivered a setback to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, placing limits on the sole Obama administration program already in place to deal with power plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.

The decision does not affect recent and highly controversial EPA proposals to set the first-ever national standards for new and existing power plants. One recent proposal would aim for a 30 percent emissions reduction by 2030.
.........
The rule in question applies when a company needs a permit to expand facilities or build new ones that would increase overall pollution.

Supreme Court limits EPA global warming rules

This is a step in the right direction.
Although it does not stop the latest EO that Obama signed to allegedly lessen emmsiions, it does giv me hope the SCOTUS will further act to stop the POTUS from overstepping his bounds and trying to work around the legislative branch.

This whole effort to set emissions standards in the US, and paid on the backs of residential consumers, needs to stop.


washingtonpost.com

www.salon.com...

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

This whole effort to set emissions standards in the US, and paid on the backs of residential consumers, needs to stop.

I think everyone should be able to burn their trash as long as it's on their property. Well, really it's just about me, but others can join. Trash PU costs are an unfair burden by this tyrannical regime.

Libertarians should organize a "national burn your trash day" to express your dissatisfaction with the EPA and their communist-Nazi tactics.

Yeah this is good news which means people won't be put out of work and headed for the welfare lines.

Even more for the rest of us that food, and fuel, and other consumer goods prices won't go higher(maybe)

Then there is other stuff like this:

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

It just hit me now of what global warming truly is.

Another means to Cloward and Piven.

Think about it.

i want to remove the catalytic converter on my car.

It does not affect earth enviornment a bit.


Ill remove all your catalytic converter for free, give me a call! i get to keep them tho.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

This whole effort to set emissions standards in the US, and paid on the backs of residential consumers, needs to stop.

Who do you think should pay for pollution. It comes at a environmental cost..

purp

a reply to: purplemer

I don't think consumer electric bills should double or triple because the POTUS feels that coal is somehow the dirtiest energy around.
Do you think the US should end up like N. Korea in the dark...and while that may be an exaggeration.....no one I know can afford these new standards.

Especially when other parts of the world crave coal.
Do you really think the air in China won't end up polluting the US air? So, how will cleaning our air even get to the standards being set?
In fact, I thought I rad the government knows the goals are not reachable.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Do you think the US should end up like N. Korea in the dark...and while that may be an exaggeration

I don't think that is an exaggeration. Considering how much energy we use.

And millions would have no means of paying for it's cost because it would be choice from food, gas, and heating, and cooling.

EPA regulations effect all of those.

We pretty much would look like NK if they got their way.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

and what if it turns out that coal is the dirtiest fuel in the environment. What if a life cycle analysis of coal is carried out and it turns out the cost to the environment is so great that coal should double in price. If you do not increase the cost then we are simply borrowing from future generations. It is a form of environmental protection that should in turn lead us to cleaner industrial methods.

As for poorer nations craving coal it in only natural. Going through industrial growth is messy. Countries like the UK and the US have already been there. What right do we have to tell other countries they cannot unless we are willing to pay the difference.

a reply to: purplemer

What if it turns out there is an agenda....and it has nothing to do with cleaning the air?

The POTUS had no right to circumvent the US Constitution to make these changes.
That is what we have the Legislature for....

And, you're saying it is ok for countries going through industrial growth to use coal?
The countries the US sent US manufacturing?

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Maybe there is an agenda. Maybe there is not. Really we do no know. What I do know however is that if there is not an agenda we are taking a huge risk causing irretrievable damage to species and ecosystems.

If we do not sort this mess out and learn to work together we could destroy our home and the home of countless other species. Now I do not like the system being used to try and protect the environment. I find it really sad that we can demean species and ecosystems to a financial value. Life has a value unto itself and the real crux of the matter is that capitalism is not sustainable on a planet of limited size and resource.

Is it fair on our part to have gone through industrial growth in the past and not paid anything for it and now expect poorer countries to foot the bill for their own industrial growth.

I dont have the answers really but I do know that carrying on regardless is not the answer.

originally posted by: luciddream
i want to remove the catalytic converter on my car.

It does not affect earth enviornment a bit.


Ill remove all your catalytic converter for free, give me a call! i get to keep them tho.

That statement is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have ever heard !! [we know it's sarcasm, but proves nothing]

The sulfur and lead in engine exhaust is/was a genuine pollutant and has been checked successfully.

The "hard" soot from coal burning has also been addressed and *IS* being lowered in the U.S. at least.

The CO2 hoax is the issue and mostly is about money, not danger from "Pollution".

U.S. regulations can not possibly affect the worldwide "problem". That's why they are having a hard time "proving" anything. So of course, they make it a money issue.

a reply to: xuenchen

The CO2 hoax is the issue and mostly is about money, not danger from "Pollution".

The CO2 myth is very similar to the tobacco myths that tobacco is harmless. It is industry and corporatism you are up against and their lies you are regurgitating

Well this is no surprise, which doesn't make it any less sad and disastrous. The Roberts Court seems hell-bent on enshrining America as a corporate oligarch state. And the people who are harmed the most seem to be the ones who are cheering them on the loudest. Go capitalism!

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: xuenchen

The CO2 hoax is the issue and mostly is about money, not danger from "Pollution".

The CO2 myth is very similar to the tobacco myths that tobacco is harmless. It is industry and corporatism you are up against and their lies you are regurgitating

I disagree.

The CO2 money hoax is in its infancy.

The bankers will keep this going for as long as possible.

You compare tobacco to the CO2 issue which has zero in common other than money scams.

Watch how they jiggle the measurements in a few years to "prove" more regulation is necessary.

There's no proof that CO2 is in excess and that the Earth is somehow not able to absorb enough CO2.

How 'bout comparing government paid "scientists" that "tested" A-Bomb fallout with Human guinea pigs.

The CO2 hoax a U.S. and European financial scam similar to the mortgage backed securities scam that was sold as "safe" too.

Glad to see this.

Obama needs to learn that he can not circumnavigate congress. He wants to sponsor a bill to make changes? That's fine. He wants to show support for a bill to create a law for changes? That is fine too.

However, whipping the pen out and going "So let it be written, so let it be done." is NOT going to fly in this country.

I don't care how many people think it's for the good of the environment. That is NOT the point here.

The point is not AGW, pollution, etc, etc.

The point here is that the executive branch of the government trying to abuse it's power.

Concerned for the planet's environment? Concerned about Climate Change? That's great!

Write your represenatives and senators. Join pro-active groups. Help do you part.

But let's not simply shrug our shoulders at having a single person dictate laws.

well, at least all you climate-change deniers are doing something....controlling the future human population due to mass kill-offs caused by weather extremes...it will be more effective than birth control and abortion combined. I'll be dead long before it happens, but I think my grandkids will be dealing with some serious living condition changes

originally posted by: jimmyx
well, at least all you climate-change deniers are doing something....controlling the future human population due to mass kill-offs caused by weather extremes...it will be more effective than birth control and abortion combined. I'll be dead long before it happens, but I think my grandkids will be dealing with some serious living condition changes

That is not what this is about.

This is not about Climate Change.

This is about curbing the power the POTUS tries to exert contrary to how our system of government is suppose to work:

Congress is the branch that makes laws.

Executive Office enforces those laws (pay attention now: one makes the laws, the other enforces them)

SCOTUS determines if said laws are constitutional.

But go ahead: make it into a AGW vs. No AGW debate, even though that is not really what this is about.

It's about a single person abusing the power of their office.

originally posted by: purplemer
Is it fair on our part to have gone through industrial growth in the past and not paid anything for it and now expect poorer countries to foot the bill for their own industrial growth.

I dont have the answers really but I do know that carrying on regardless is not the answer.

Paid nothing for it? We've always had utility bills...and taxes to pay for infrastructure....at least in my lifetime.

It is not fair [or legal, IMHO] for the POTUS to circumvent the Constitution and in the process ruin the lives of Americans.
Many are better off than I am.
But many more are worse off than I am.
And I know we have had to curtail our lives due to rising costs. Food, drugs, clothing, electric, gas, insurance. And many of these tied to energy costs.
So, those that become homeless, or jobless....destitute and poverty-stricken over this...that is a justifiable cost in your eyes??

It's okay to allow America to slide toward Third World status????

It would be interesting to look at the EPA regulations and see what gets affected by the SCOTUS decisions...

All 645 pages.................
EPA
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

I'm mildly confused; EPA Claims Victory In SCOTUS For Obama's Climate Change Plan

Seems the Obama administration did pretty well with this decision. It wasn't groundbreaking but it wasn't entirely not in the administration's favor either.

Not really big news, I suppose.