I’ll believe “carbon pollution” is dangerous when people like Biden stop putting out so darned much themselves
In EPA Supreme Court case, the agency’s power to combat climate change hangs in the balance
President Biden’s ambitious plans to combat climate change, blocked by an uncooperative Congress, face an equally tough test next week at the Supreme Court. With the court’s conservative justices increasingly suspicious that agencies are overstepping their powers, the case’s outcome could not only reshape U.S. environmental policy but also call into question the authority of regulators to tackle the nation’s most pressing problems.
First, it’s not a real problem. Second, Americans are way, way, way more concerned with things like high gas and energy prices, high food prices, housing, and so much more.
On Monday, the court takes up a years-long challenge from coal-mining companies and Republican-led states contesting the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to mandate sweeping changes to the way the nation’s power sector produces electricity, the nation’s second-largest source of climate-warming pollution.
West Virginia v. EPA comes before a Supreme Court that’s even more conservative than the one that stopped the Obama administration’s plan to drastically reduce power plants’ carbon output in 2016.
“This will undoubtedly be the most important environmental law case on the court’s docket this term, and could well become one of the most significant environmental law cases of all time,” said Jonathan H. Adler, an environmental law expert at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
This has nothing to do with the environment, at least as argued, because this is not about mining, but, the release of CO2. And, granted, I’ve said many, many times that I would love to see coal replaced with other energy that’s reliable and affordable, because of the environmental damage.
Environmental advocates fear the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could limit the Biden administration’s ability to curb carbon pollution from power plants before any regulation is written, and leave the United States short of its climate goals at a time when scientists suggest drastic cuts in emissions are needed to avert dangerous warming. The president wants the U.S. power grid to run entirely on clean energy by 2035.
I expect the Brandon admin to lose this one, and, this is also what Leftists are concerned with
But this case could resonate beyond environmental issues, since the Supreme Court’s conservatives have become more and more skeptical of federal agencies exercising their authority on a range of fronts. Pointing to what is called the “major questions” doctrine, the justices are insisting that Congress specifically authorize agency action that touches on significant issues.
Reigning in the power of the federal government to simply do whatever they want whenever they want, in violation of their assigned powers, could take a bit hit, as could the Executive Branch simply inventing Reasons to do what they want from minor things in legislation.
LOL!
#LetsGoBrandon
#FuckJoeBiden
Bwaha! Lolgf
The federal government just sold leases to build offshore wind turbines off the coast of Teach’s beloved NJ for over 4bikkion dollars. Apparently some capitalists see big profits in wind energy. The sale was larger than ANY previous fossil extraction leases.companies paid about 9000$ per acre to put those silly windmills up, typically oil companies pay 1 dollar per acer for the right to drill on federal areas
“I’ll believe ‘carbon pollution’ is dangerous when people like Biden stop putting out so darned much themselves,” our esteemed host said. Why, I have to ask, don’t the people telling us we must reduce our CO2 output ever do anything to reduce their own? Why wouldn’t someone from the Show Me State want to show us just what and how much he has done, personally, to reduce his own carbon footprint?
What I have done isn’t much: we replaced our light bulbs with LEDs, not to reduce our energy consumption, but because when we bought the place, it had incandescent bulbs that were burning out anyway. In addition, as we remodeled the kitchen, we installed canister lights, and the much lower temperature LEDs are far safer in canister lights.
I installed a clothesline outside, which means that, in decent weather, our bedding and my clothes gets dried using solar and wind power. Admittedly, I did this because my darling bride (of 42 years, 9 months, and 7 days) likes the way the bedding smells after line drying, rather than any concern over
global warmingclimate change, but it still saves on over an hour in the 220-volt, 30-amp electric dryer.When I added windows, I added double-paned insulated ones; you can see the large windows I installed in our kitchen remodel below:
It replaced one much narrower double hung window. I added another window in our living room, along a wall which had only one, and the room needed more light. As I had walls open, I added insulation to exterior walls. When we put in new kitchen appliances, we were buying energy efficient ones.
Perhaps my motives weren’t pure enough for the warmunists, but, in the end, my wife and I still did these things, and we’ve spent a considerable amount of money doing so; that kitchen window was over $700 just by itself.
Of course, we also added propane, to a house which was previously all-electric, because when the sparktricity goes out in our end-of-the-line farmhouse, it can be out for several days. I’m sure that has us near the gates of Hell as far as the
global warmingclimate activists are concerned, but, then again, we didn’t freeze when we lost power for 46 hours in the middle of January.So, what has the man from Missouri done, what has the Hirsute One done, to reduce their carbon footprints (feetprint?) that they tell the rest of us we must do? We already know that Hairy is keeping his current, fossil-fueled automobile, and has no plans to trade it in for a plug-in electric, but, then again, he has told us he’s in his 70s and doesn’t ever plan on buying another vehicle. Being less than two months from my 69th birthday, I can understand that!
But at some point, those
global warmingclimate change activists need to do more than just lecture others; they need to lead by example. That so few of them do says a lot about how seriously they takeglobal warmingclimate.Our Komrade from Kintuckistan asks us what we’ve done in our own lives to reduce our carbon output!! Again, the tiny, energy efficient home we’ve lived in for several decades uses less energy than most. In addition, as part of a metro area, our drives are short! We’ve mostly worked from our home offices for years. We pay extra for electricity from renewables. Energy efficient appliances, cars, LEDs, trees, trees, trees, recycle, compost, etc etc. If all middle class Americans lived as we do we’d have less of a problem.
Our Kintuckistani knows this, but that’s not his point. The objective of science-deniers is to erect an argument to criticize their ‘enemies’. Regardless of what one does, it is never perfect.
Deniers long ago abandoned arguing the science of global warming. They lost. So now deniers such as Teach and Dana attack the messengers rather than the messages.
Here are a few facts. The Earth is warming. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing. Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas. Global warming is causing ice to melt, duh. Less ice means more liquid water, duh. Carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans is causing the ocean pH to drop. None of this is seriously disputed.
Deniers demand ‘proof’, but as they were taught in high school, scientific theories are not proved, but as evidence accumulates in support of a theory it becomes accepted by the scientific community. Electrons are hard to see but few doubt they exist. No one has watched a Homo ergaster turn into a Homo sapien but few doubt the reality of biological evolution. Science is not a set of facts (although it is often taught that way) but is a process.
If one’s main argument against a scientific theory is that not everyone acts as if it is practically important, your argument is practically impotent.
The socialist from St Louis wrote:
That would be the first time that I have seen in which you have told us what you have done to fight
global warmingclimate change, and I can’t think of one thing, in any of the things you have listed, which somehow out your identity, a worry you have previously expressed.Was that really so hard?
You compost? We had thought that you filed your compost as comments here!
Of course, “Komrade from Kintuckistan” doesn’t really work, because not only have you managed to misspell a state which borders on your own, the “stan” part doesn’t really work, ’cause we don’t allow them Mooslims to live here! “Sage from the Sticks” might work better, or perhaps something with “Hillbilly” in it, or even “Baron from the Bluegrass.”
Yeah, I like that last one!
I have mentioned our small, energy efficient home multiple times. I am not responsible for your inattentiveness, nor am I obligated to satisfy your requests.
This has been a lifelong habit for me. I had a small V8 just after college and traded it in for a new 75 VW Rabbit and drove the wheels of it for over 10 yrs. Spending lots on gas just seemed wasteful AND polluting.
How about I refer to you as Dana?
Troll Elwood: You have also mentioned many lies multiple times. Not one word you write can be trusted to be true.
I’m a proud hillbilly from the MO Ozarks, but am pleased Kintuck… irks you!
Troll Elwood: You have been caught in so many lies your words are worthless.
Johnny’s economic lesson for today: A wind farm lease for 9000$ an acre for intermittent energy vs. 1 dollar per acre for cheap, reliable fossil fuel energy. Which has to make the most to become profitable? Fossil fuels pay billions a year in taxes-how much to the unreliables pay? For every gallon of gas sold, there’s 18 cents in federal gas tax plus an average of 24 cents in state gas tax charged that immediately goes back to government coffers.
Oh Jilly!
Who’s Johnny??
Anyway… why do you want the US to be dependent on energy from tyrannical nations – Saudis, Russians etc. And now our neighbor to the north who supplies oil bigly, has become a nazi/fascist/communist/socialist nation, according to America cons forcing anarchists to stop blocking highways and bridges!!
Dowd knows that wind and solar are not gonna cut it. The left is even starting to talk about Nuclear now. Knowing that Wind and Solar just don’t get the job done for 8 billion people.
Petroleum liquids (49,505,000 megawatts), petroleum coke (16,234,000 megawatts), natural gas (896,590,000 megawatts), and other gases (13,453,000 megawatts) account for a total of 975,782,000 megawatts. To replace these sources of power you would need an additional 650,521,333 wind turbines.
BUILD BABY BUILD. Then I have one question. How ya gonna get them planes to fly, rockets to the space station, jets and tanks to fight China and RUSSIA which DOWD believes are terrified of the USA cause we will sneak up on them with electric vehicles?
Keep it buildin Hairy and Dowd. Reminds me of Bevis and Butthead. LOLOLOLOLOL. Ha ha haha.
Troll Elwood: Repeating your Masters’ lies again I see… working hard to be a good slave.
Ok, let’s review-where in the world did I say we needed to be dependent on energy from other nations? Absolutely no where. It’s Bandon’s policies that have us going from energy independence to mostly dependent. And it still takes a lot more to profit when you buy something at 9000$ an acre vs. 1 dollar per acre.
[…] is dangerous when people like Biden stop putting out so darned much themselves,” William Teach said. Why, I have to ask, don’t the people telling us we must reduce our CO2 output ever do […]