• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pruitt will end Obama policy regulating greenhouse gas emissions

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
imported_tajmahal said:
It's been out for a couple of years, another attempt by Obama to push an unconstitutional and non-legislative plan through by Administrative fiat. It failed, just like his Paris Climate Treaty.
Click to expand...

God forbid we unconstitutionally clean the air. Meanwhile your dear leader is trying to tweet us into nuclear oblivion. Nice priorities.
 
sandorski said:
"Industry Lawyers", lol.
Click to expand...
You laugh, but there's a huge difference of opinion between environmental law professors and private environmental lawyers.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/07/...an-legal-lawyers-and-law-professors-disagree/

"
We polled 130 environmental attorneys and law professors from around the country about the legality of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan. The results might surprise you. – Brian Potts and Abigail Barnes


The EPA’s Clean Power Plan has substantial political and economic ramifications; for a recent discussion, see The impact of a rogue EPA by Steve Forbes. The legality of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan was discussed previously at CE:

See also this recent paper by Jason Scott Johnson:

So, is there any consensus among lawyers about the legality of the Clean Power Plan? This issue is addressed in an interesting new paper:

Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan Legal? Lawyers and Law Professors Disagree

Brian Potts and Abigail Barnes

Abstract. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. Since its release last year, numerous law professors and attorneys have published articles debating the Plan’s legality. We polled 130 environmental law professors and attorneys from around the country to obtain their views on the subject. Our essay reports the results.

............

"The Conclusions provide an interpretation of their results:

Based on our results, we identified several noteworthy outcomes. First, approximately 80% of environmental law professors polled believe the Clean Power Plan is legal, compared to only 27% of the private environmental attorneys who responded. One reason for this could be that 74% of private attorneys in this poll represent clients on matters directly involving the Clean Power Plan, which may have imputed a bias into their responses. Alternatively, only 13% of professors represent clients."
 
pete6032 said:
The "war on coal" is being waged by more efficient, comparably priced energy sources, NOT by government regulations.
Click to expand...

Even the DOE's own very recent report (which Perry commissioned) has said this is the case. Cheap natural gas killed coal. The Obama era EPA regs have merely shuffled it along to the graveyard a bit faster in the name of combating climate change and benefiting the public health (less particulates, ozone, haze, SO2, NOX, heavy metal contamination, etc). The horror.
 
hopefully this ruling will allow HELE plants to gain better traction. High thermal efficiency, incredibly clean 7x24x365 baseload power. Basically, cheap, clean, low cost, reliable power. Coupled with natural gas ccgt plants and an appropriate mix of hydro/wind/solar. we can provide guaranteed power to the US at very affordable cost
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Another article about The Clean Power Plan.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/factbox-obamas-clean-power-plan-faces-tough-legal-171538733.html

"
Q: What is the likely outcome?

A: Industry lawyers say the high court has become increasingly skeptical of large-scale agency rule-making. The EPA's "outside the fenceline" proposal could raise eyebrows among the court’s conservatives, who have already expressed concern about the government using the Clean Air Act as a tool to combat climate change.

In the 2014 carbon emissions case, Justice Antonin Scalia said that when an agency "claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism."
Click to expand...
"Bitch, bring that water up here already!"
 
imported_tajmahal said:
lol, yeah Yahoo is carrying water for ................... who is it you keep claiming? fascists? nazis? Klaners? commies? russians? Must be .........aliens.
Click to expand...

Your article is based on comments by industry lawyers... It's their job to carry water for whoever is paying them & to carry forward even Quixotic desires on the part of their clients. Anything to churn fees. They'll say what they're paid to say.
 
Jhhnn said:
Your article is based on comments by industry lawyers... It's their job to carry water for whoever is paying them & to carry forward even Quixotic desires on the part of their clients. Anything to churn fees. They'll say what they're paid to say.
Click to expand...
No it's not.
"We polled 130 environmental attorneys and law professors from around the country about the legality of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan. The results might surprise you. – Brian Potts and Abigail Barnes"

Try reading it next time, at least read it before you lie about it.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/07/...an-legal-lawyers-and-law-professors-disagree/
 
brycejones said:
Actually yes you do need to wait until a verdict is reached given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Are you huffing paint today?
Click to expand...
For fsks sake, read the definition of what illegal is. It's not that hard to look up a word you don't understand, try in next time.

illegal in American
(ɪˈligəl
adjective
1.
prohibited by law; against the law; unlawful; illicit; also, not authorized or sanctioned, as by rules
noun
2.
an alien who has entered a country illegally
 
imported_tajmahal said:
No it's not.
"We polled 130 environmental attorneys and law professors from around the country about the legality of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan. The results might surprise you. – Brian Potts and Abigail Barnes"

Try reading it next time, at least read it before you lie about it.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/07/...an-legal-lawyers-and-law-professors-disagree/
Click to expand...

You really should take your own advice. You are now incorruptible level stupid (for those newer members, incorruptible was by far one of the dumbest posters on this forum).

From the article you didn't read:

Based on our results, we identified several noteworthy outcomes. First, approximately 80% of environmental law professors polled believe the Clean Power Plan is legal, compared to only 27% of the private environmental attorneys who responded. One reason for this could be that 74% of private attorneys in this poll represent clients on matters directly involving the Clean Power Plan, which may have imputed a bias into their responses. Alternatively, only 13% of professors represent clients. Of course, the poll was anonymous, so it could also be that these private attorneys have simply spent more time examining the potential legal issues with the Clean Power Plan than the law professors. Law professors are also known to be a liberal-leaning group, so it’s also possible that politics played into their opinions. Regardless of the reason, however, we think the glaring discrepancy in opinions is striking.

Another interesting finding is that most respondents do not believe that building block 1 is illegal, or that the Plan is unconstitutional. Considering that these two arguments are widely viewed as the weakest challenges to the Plan’s legality, this did not come as much of a surprise. But it certainly does not bode well for Professor Tribe’s constitutional arguments: the long-time liberal-lion is certainly in the minority with his belief that the Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional.

Instead, most respondents cited building blocks 3 and 4 as the reason the Plan is illegal. Somewhat less, but still a majority of those responding, also believe the Plan is not legal because of building block 2 and the language in section 111(d). As discussed above, building blocks 2, 3, and 4 deal with EPA’s interpretation of the word “system,” and the extent to which the EPA can regulate emissions outside the fence-line—or beyond the power plants themselves. Building blocks 3 (increased renewables) and 4 (energy efficiency) are clearly outside the fence-line actions; however, whether or not building block 2 is an outside the fence-line action is more debatable, as it involves running existing natural gas plants more to offset generation from coal plants. The fact that more respondents believe building blocks 3 and 4 are illegal than believe building block 2 is illegal therefore makes sense. Interestingly, the few professors that said the Plan is illegal cited either section 111(d) or building blocks 3 and 4 for the basis of its illegality.

Finally, 34% of respondents who believe the Plan is illegal do not think states should submit implementation plans to EPA. This percentage was higher than we anticipated, since this approach would likely increase electricity rates for those states that opt-out20 and could invariably end up backfiring (which is ironic, since the reason many are suggesting that states opt-out from a policy standpoint is because they believe the Plan will increase electricity rates and hurt their state’s economy).

Of course, in the end, it is only the opinions of nine people that will likely matter, none of whom participated in our poll: the nine justices siting on the U.S. Supreme Court. And while it is impossible to know how the Supreme Court might rule, a majority of the currently siting justices were law professors prior to being appointed. Based on our poll results, that could end up being good news for President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
Click to expand...
 
imported_tajmahal said:
No it's not.
"We polled 130 environmental attorneys and law professors from around the country about the legality of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan. The results might surprise you. – Brian Potts and Abigail Barnes"

Try reading it next time, at least read it before you lie about it.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/07/...an-legal-lawyers-and-law-professors-disagree/
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try reading your own link a little more thoroughly:

Based on our results, we identified several noteworthy outcomes. First, approximately 80% of environmental law professors polled believe the Clean Power Plan is legal, compared to only 27% of the private environmental attorneys who responded. One reason for this could be that 74% of private attorneys in this poll represent clients on matters directly involving the Clean Power Plan, which may have imputed a bias into their responses. Alternatively, only 13% of professors represent clients
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that lots of people known as "environmental lawyers" do in fact represent industry in opposition to environmental regulations, I would also point out, having been to law school, that law professors tend to have been top lawyers in their fields before becoming professors.

I think it's interesting that you seem to have a definite opinion that the Clean Power Plan is illegal, without actually seeming to know or understand the legal arguments, and basing it on this article which doesn't add a lot of weight to your position. Lawyers who represent private interests in litigation are literally the least objective people on the planet when it comes to assessing the very issues for which their clients pay them as mouth pieces. You couldn't possibly find someone more biased. You're better off asking the opinion of a lay person who knows nothing at all about the law because at least they aren't being paid to take a position.

Oh, and lest you think that lawyers in private practice are evenly divided between those representing industry and those representing pro-environmental interests, you'd be wrong. Corporations have the money to hire lots of attorneys. Typically if a plaintiff's lawyer sues a corporation for, say, introducing toxins into the local water supply and giving people cancer, that lawyer will be outnumbered at least 3 to 1 by the industry defense lawyers.
 
Last edited:
You can believe in lawyers representing the extremist groups Earth First!, GreenPeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice! , EDF ...etc., but I don't.
woolfe9998 said:
Maybe you should try reading your own link a little more thoroughly:



Aside from the fact that lots of people known as "environmental lawyers" do in fact represent industry in opposition to environmental regulations, I would also point out, having been to law school, that law professors tend to have been top lawyers in their fields before becoming professors.

I think it's interesting that you seem to have a definite opinion that the Clean Power Plan is illegal, without actually seeming to know or understand the legal arguments, and basing it on this article which doesn't add a lot of weight to your position. Lawyers who represent private interests in litigation are literally the least objective people on the planet when it comes to assessing the very issues for which their clients pay them as mouth pieces. You couldn't possibly find someone more biased. You're better off asking the opinion of a lay person who knows nothing at all about the law because at least they aren't being paid to take a position.

Oh, and lest you think that lawyers in private practice are evenly divided between those representing industry and those representing pro-environmental interests, you'd be wrong. Corporations have the money to hire lots of attorneys. Typically if a plaintiff's lawyer sues a corporation for, say, introducing toxins into the local water supply and giving people cancer, that lawyer will be outnumbered at least 3 to 1 by the industry defense lawyers.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top