Pirate's Cove

I’m not sure how I feel about this case being adjudicated at the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Asked To Upend Pollution Rules

California’s sweeping new climate-disclosure mandates have triggered an escalating legal battle now arriving at the U.S. Supreme Court, with business groups asking to temporarily halt two state laws—Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 261—that require large companies operating in California to report their greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-related financial risks.

The emergency appeal argues that forcing companies to issue these disclosures violates the First Amendment, setting up a high-stakes dispute over the boundary between state transparency rules and protections against compelled speech.

California’s first-in-the-nation climate disclosure laws have triggered a high-stakes Supreme Court battle that could reshape the reach of state climate policy and the scope of corporate First Amendment rights.

At issue is whether companies can be required to publicly report their emissions and climate-related financial risks, or whether such mandates amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

The outcome could determine how much climate information businesses must reveal to the public, whether states retain authority to demand transparency on environmental and financial risks, and how far corporations can go in using free-speech claims to block regulatory oversight—setting a precedent with sweeping implications for climate accountability nationwide.

I’m not really buying the 1st Amendment thing, this is really not about free speech or religion or anything else in there. Or in California’s version in their Constitution. But

Opponents argue these disclosures are not mere factual reporting requirements but compelled ideological speech.

The filing further characterizes the laws as part of “California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior.”

The Chamber and its partners assert that the mandates go beyond standard corporate reporting practices.

They argue that the laws require businesses to adopt California’s preferred framing of climate responsibility.

Still doesn’t seem like a free speech issue, but, it sure seems as if the PRC is requiring specific conduct from companies. But, let’s be honest, Government requires many things from companies. Hell, remember that government requires the use of Everify. Does that violate the free speech rights of hard left companies that support illegal aliens?

It should be interesting how this comes out. I gotta say, though, if the companies do not like the intrusive, waste of time cult rules they should leave the PRC in the same way I say fossil fuels companies should get out.

Read: Supreme Court To Hear Lawsuit Against PRC Over Climate (scam) Disclosure Rules »

Get an EV, they said, you’ll save the planet and save money they said. Then, reality intrudes

Electric vehicle owners to face pay-per-mile tax

A new tax for electric and hybrid vehicles has been announced by the chancellor in the Budget.

From April 2028, electric car drivers will pay a road charge of 3p per mile, while plug-in hybrid drivers will pay 1.5p per mile, with the rates going up each year with inflation.

The new tax is about “half the fuel duty rate paid by drivers of petrol cars”, according to the government’s independent forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Drivers will pay the charge based on how many miles they drive from April 2028.

Motorists will have their mileage checked annually, typically during their MOT as is already the case, or for new cars, around their first and second registration anniversary, the Treasury said.

Payment will be integrated into the existing Vehicle Excise Duty system that is administrated by DVLA.

Under the measures, an electric car driver clocking up 8,500 miles in the 2028-29 financial year is expected to pay about £255 – about half the cost per mile that petrol and diesel drivers pay in fuel tax.

So, you should be paying £0, but, nope, the Powers That Be realized that EVs drive on roads and roads need to be maintained and do not pay a fuel tax, so, they’ll get you one way or the other. Here in NC, and many other states, the yearly registration is vastly higher than with gas and hybrid vehicles, erasing a goodly chunk of the savings for driving an EV. I 100% understand the reasoning with a need to maintain roads, but, seems rather shady to promise all those savings then yank them away. Especially when the UK government is doing all they can to force Citizens into EVs.

All new cars will have to be electric or hybrid from 2030, when a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars comes into force. But some in the industry argue this new tax could make electric cars less appealing.

The OBR said the new charge was “likely to reduce demand for electric cars as it increases their lifetime cost”.

Huh.

Read: UK EV Driver’s To Be Taxed Per Mile Driven »