Supreme Court limits EPA global warming rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
Actually it was a very narrow opinion and had 2 verdicts. Even Scalia admitted it removes very little over sight from the EPA.

Scalia, writing for the court, said "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case." Scalia said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide. The agency will be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling, Scalia said.


Did you even read the article?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
I don't see this making that much of a difference, but I'm not sure I understand the details involved. Just based on reading the article it would seem that this ruling helps curb the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, while leaving intact their ability to regulate other emissions they previously regulated. Seems like a good thing, we don't want an even more out of control epa with even more power.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,875
6,784
126
Are you working off the presumption that man does not have a negative effect on the climate?

No matter how many assumptions you punch through with conservative brains that rationalize information their egos find unpleasant, like for example, their stupidity will kill their kiks, they will just invent some new bubble reality to help them deny. It's endless and the disaster of their stupidity is pretty certain. One day their kids will call them assholes. The conservative of tomorrow is the liberal of today.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
lol, OP failed to read the article. Ruling was very limited and EPA basically got nearly 100% of what it wanted.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Basically the EPA gets stuck with mostly doing what the EPA should be doing: regulating emissions that cause actual pollution. If you emit only CO2 then the EPA doesn't have much teeth.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
The article seems a little confusing. Does this ruling just say the EPA needs more than just emissions to issue permits or what? It doesn't sound like this decision does much of anything.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,311
47,698
136
Basically the EPA gets stuck with mostly doing what the EPA should be doing: regulating emissions that cause actual pollution. If you emit only CO2 then the EPA doesn't have much teeth.

Find me a coal power plant that only emits pure CO2 and nothing else.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,976
141
106
the eco-KOOKS need their neck stepped on. More will be on the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.