SCOTUS rules against EPA regarding power plant emmisions

[K1052]

Looks like it's time to stop biomass burning and throw out all those CFL bulbs...but damn, what are we going to do about the oceans?

Natural sources account for about 70% of the world’s total mercury emissions.

Oooh…fun with images

Top 6 US mercury sources per the DOE

http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/crosscutting/environmental-control/mercury-emission-control/regulatory-drivers

 

[IGBT]

we all know the cooling / warming / sky is falling liberal mythology is largely rooted in liberal agenda based resentment and envy. They have tons of junk science to prop up their lies and mass delusion. And then there's the other bunch of pseudo scientists that want to keep the TAX PAYER funded grant revenue flowing so they can study nothing endlessly and justify it with gloom and doom pseudo science mythology. The mass hysteria is backfiring and turning into mass dismissal of a bunch of eco-KOOK psychotics.

 

[Thebobo]

we all know the cooling / warming / sky is falling liberal mythology is largely rooted in liberal agenda based resentment and envy. They have tons of junk science to prop up their lies and mass delusion. And then there's the other bunch of pseudo scientists that want to keep the TAX PAYER funded grant revenue flowing so they can study nothing endlessly and justify it with gloom and doom pseudo science mythology. The mass hysteria is backfiring and turning into mass dismissal of a bunch of eco-KOOK psychotics.

Well there you go.

 

[TheSlamma]

I think someone has a little too much Mercury in their water

 

[Jaskalas]

Natural sources account for about 70% of the world’s total mercury emissions.

You're not suggesting human mercury pollution is ... safe, are you?

 

[ivwshane]

It looks like Scalias hypocrisy continues. In the ACA case he dissented claiming the majority opinion used context to change the meaning of the words written in the bill. So how does he rule on the EPA case? He reads the law that requires the EPA to "study necessary and appropriate guidelines" and adds to that that surely that means the EPA should also be considering costs.

So which is it Scalia? Judges should be interpreting the law as it is written or judges can look at the context?

Typical right wing moron, black is black, until it's white.

 

[nickqt]

we all know the cooling / warming / sky is falling liberal mythology is largely rooted in liberal agenda based resentment and envy. They have tons of junk science to prop up their lies and mass delusion. And then there's the other bunch of pseudo scientists that want to keep the TAX PAYER funded grant revenue flowing so they can study nothing endlessly and justify it with gloom and doom pseudo science mythology. The mass hysteria is backfiring and turning into mass dismissal of a bunch of eco-KOOK psychotics.

Can I get a vinaigrette with that word salad?

 

[Victorian Gray]

we all know the cooling / warming / sky is falling liberal mythology is largely rooted in liberal agenda based resentment and envy. They have tons of junk science to prop up their lies and mass delusion. And then there's the other bunch of pseudo scientists that want to keep the TAX PAYER funded grant revenue flowing so they can study nothing endlessly and justify it with gloom and doom pseudo science mythology. The mass hysteria is backfiring and turning into mass dismissal of a bunch of eco-KOOK psychotics.

Some kind of random word generator?

 

[thraashman]

It looks like Scalias hypocrisy continues. In the ACA case he dissented claiming the majority opinion used context to change the meaning of the words written in the bill. So how does he rule on the EPA case? He reads the law that requires the EPA to "study necessary and appropriate guidelines" and adds to that that surely that means the EPA should also be considering costs.

So which is it Scalia? Judges should be interpreting the law as it is written or judges can look at the context?

Typical right wing moron, black is black, until it's white.

Scalia is without a doubt the worst of the current justices. And he's in the running for being the worst of all time. He's easily one of the most constitutionally ignorant public officials in this country. The only one that might have him beat is Ted Cruz, but honestly I think Scalia still wins this battle of dumbasses.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're not suggesting human mercury pollution is ... safe, are you?

Not at all. Zero mercury emissions would be awesome, but I'm also a pragmatist. I posted that graphic to show the issue in perspective.

 

[Brainonska511]

Not at all. Zero mercury emissions would be awesome, but I'm also a pragmatist. I posted that graphic to show the issue in perspective.

Characterizing "mercury" in a generic form is disingenous when discussing the problem. It ignores the real chemistry issue that different compounds have different toxicities. You can see this in the toxicity profiles of thimerosal (which breaks down in the body into ethylmercury) versus the methylmercury you'll encounter when you eat tuna.

 

[K1052]

Not at all. Zero mercury emissions would be awesome, but I'm also a pragmatist. I posted that graphic to show the issue in perspective.

The EPA quantified the financial and human costs from industrial mercury pollution that the new rules would eliminate. Your graphic is pointless.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Characterizing "mercury" in a generic form is disingenous when discussing the problem. It ignores the real chemistry issue that different compounds have different toxicities. You can see this in the toxicity profiles of thimerosal (which breaks down in the body into ethylmercury) versus the methylmercury you'll encounter when you eat tuna.

All the more reason to go nuclear.

 

[glenn1]

Not at all. Zero mercury emissions would be awesome, but I'm also a pragmatist. I posted that graphic to show the issue in perspective.

You can never completely remove it. Depending on your cost tolerance you can remove increasing amounts of it. Problem is the costs to do so don't scale linearly with the percentage of reduction. Using made-up numbers, it might cost a coal-fired plant $1k to remove the first 90% of mercury emissions, $100K for the next 9%, $10MM for the next 0.5% after that, until the costs approach infinity as you require more and more removal.

Likewise it's doubtful the benefits of mercury removal scales linearly as well. Again with made up numbers the first 90% of emission removals may have $100MM in societal benefits, the next 9% has $1MM, the next 0.5% has $10k, etc. to approaching zero with "perfect" mercury removal.