PPVRA wrote:

Affordable energy is essential for everything from surviving winter to global food security.

Repeating the industry mantra that coal is an 'affordable' energy doesn't make it any more true. It is only affordable as long as fixing the environmental damage is paid for by somebody else. Once you start regulating emissions properly is quickly ceases to be the cheapest option.

By the way, renewables have come a long way in the last 20 years, including more than 50% cost reduction for onshore wind and more than 80% for utility scale photovoltaics since 2010. Government regulation that forced companies to introduce renewables and the resulting economies of scale played a big part in that. States like Kansas already have 45% market share of wind power yet maintain an average cost of electricity.
For a country with plenty of empty space and cheap access to natural gas, holding on to coal is pointless. Ironically, 'small government' Republicans are the driving force behind new regulations to limit renewables.

mxaxai wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Affordable energy is essential for everything from surviving winter to global food security.

Repeating the industry mantra that coal is an 'affordable' energy doesn't make it any more true. It is only affordable as long as fixing the environmental damage is paid for by somebody else. Once you start regulating emissions properly is quickly ceases to be the cheapest option.

People take too much of an all or nothing stance on renewables. If it’s not ready to step in as a like for like replacement today, then they believe there’s no point in even trying. Just keep kicking that can down the road. It’ll be someone else’s problem before you know it.

Future generations be damned, I want cheap gas and coal powered electricity now!

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

I support alternative energies. I don’t support beating up the traditional and reliable sources of energy that are still so essential for us. Support for alternative sources does not automatically translate into support for a cap and trade scheme.

The proposed EPA definition of BSER does not "beat up on them". You're accepting and repeating the lines the special interests are feeding you.

The purpose of the new BSER, is to allow utilities to reduce their carbon footprint through the means of their choosing. They could adopt more alternative sources to offset their fossil sources, or they could alter the balance of their fossil sources, or they could invest in carbon removal technologies, or they could purchase credits from other utilities that have reduced their own footprints. And if they reduce enough of their own footprint, they could sell those same credits to other utilities, as a source of income.

The only thing they cannot do under that definition, is to do nothing and ignore their footprint. And that is exactly what they want to do, claiming that it can't be economically reduced, or that it will starve consumers of power. But nothing about the definition says they have to reduce power output, or shut down their existing plants.

For those of us that remember the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, these exact same claims were made. But in fact it was possible to comply, without economic hardship. Automakers invested in technology and research that vastly improved not only emissions, but efficiency as well.

Eventually leaded gas was limited to the markets where it was essential. The same thing will likely happen to coal, in time. Resistance to that shift, is what drives these objections.

Driving up the price of fossil fuel energy is a stated goal that has been repeated endlessly for years. The goal is to artificially make it less competitive than alternatives, even though it obviously does not make the alternatives more accessible.

“But nothing about the definition says they have to reduce power output, or shut down their existing plants.”

This is disingenuous. It’s gonna make them lose their competitiveness against other sources, thus it will reduce their incentive to maintain production. You cannot claim they don’t have to produce less just because it costs more when that is exactly how the system works.

Actually it makes the true costs apparent, since the utilities are not on the hook for the cost of climate change. The public is. So we can pay for the change in all the ways it manifests, or we can pay for the technologies that reduce the change.

And it does not make the utilities less competitive if the same rules apply to everyone. It just gives them an incentive to adopt less polluting means of generation, which is the whole point of the EPA.

As I said, we've heard all these arguments before, in previous cases of pollution, but they have never been true in reality, and they aren't this time either.

Unfortunately, I've read that the closing dates for several coal power plants have been extended due to reliability issues. So the US and Europe are finding we still need coal power no matter how the USSC ruled.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Unfortunately, I've read that the closing dates for several coal power plants have been extended due to reliability issues. So the US and Europe are finding we still need coal power no matter how the USSC ruled.

But the "clean coal" plants don't need to be anymore, according to SCOTUS. This is how much contempt Republicans have for Americans. These companies can pollute but when health care costs go up because of all the pollution, oh, well.

scbriml wrote:

USCS on a roll - taking America back to the 1960s. Maybe that's what Trump meant by MAGA.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

Constantly romanticizing a heavily edited past that no one wants to return to, except some white men and maybe Clarence Thomas, a heterosexual man, who thinks about and discusses homosexuality more than homosexuals. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I’ll never understand these conservative men who’re constantly ranting and raving about gay people. They’re obsessed.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This ruling revolves around Congress' original intent in defining the standard of Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER), to be used by the EPA in regulating pollutant output by power plants. As originally written, the intent was to evaluate an individual plant's achievable pollutant reduction, and that this would adapt and advance as technology moved forward.

As the definition of pollutant has grown to encompass greenhouse gases, so has the definition of BSER grown to encompass alternative means of production, that don't produce those gases. Those could be considered the best means of reduction.

The court has essentially ruled that unless Congress intervenes to expand the definition of BSER, the EPA must abide by the original context, which was modifications to individual plants. The EPA may not expand the definition as an act of administrative policy.

So like the Dobbs decision, we see the court ignore the reality of what is in the best interests of the people, and thus widely supported, in favor of limiting the scope of federal government. Their view is that exercise of administrative powers that are not explicitly granted by legislative or Constitutional provision, are by definition not in the interests of the people. Regardless of what the cost may be.

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

The court is there to interpret the law, not try to discern anyone’s “best interests”. Congreve thru elected and accountable to the electorate are there to determine the nation’s best interest. I guess the role of elected representatives has just been cast aside as unworkable. RIP Democracy.

Because a few far-right loons making extremely important decisions for 300+ million people is totally democratic in nature. A majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose, yet SCOTUS is ruling in direct opposition of what the people want. This is about catering to a minority of religious fanatics who want to enforce their will upon everyone else. The real threat to American democracy is fanaticism from the religious right, who’d gladly light a match and burn this nation to the ground if that meant implementing the theocracy they preach about.

The law is interpreted and subject to the prevailing culture and ignorance of a specific time period. This is why laws are constantly having to be changed. Laws that made perfect sense 500 years ago are now viewed as cruel, backwards and outdated. I’m personally not too worried because what SCOTUS interprets today will most assuredly be overturned by a more enlightened future court.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

How many German citizens are suing their government?

Not sued by citizens that I am aware of , but strongly protested against.

There have been massive demonstrations in cities all over the country about it for years. Some peaceful, others have been at the mines themselves and turned nasty.
Heard of Fridaysforfuture? Shut down the city I live in for 1-2 hrs on Fridays every few months... coal is one of the main talking points.

Anyway, off topic somewhat.

In the 1970s an American President said it was time to address climate change, as well as other major problems facing the US. We all know where that got him, and us. Is is acerbic for me to note that had the world begun moving away from coal and FF (suggestion at the time was use natural gas as a bridge) the world would not be facing a crisis now? The hell with reality we want new think and cheap fuel, make america white again. Truth doesn't bat last* (unfortunately), but evolution does.

*truth is a human construct - noble, useful, productive. But often not convenient.

Between Justice Pubic Hair and Justice Erection dece t folks in this country are getting screwed. Soon the Scrotums at SCOTUS will start on Oral Sex, followed by making cit illegal stock go to a different not state for an Abortion. (In that last one the states with that law will need to. have officials to carry our Birth Canal Inspections to ensure that there are no pregnancies leaving the state. I'd recommend old, retired politicians to carry that inspection.)

Actually I would be happy to split Texas into Multiple states letting the liberal areas join the reasonable, responsible areas of the nation and the rest shunted off to their radical hillbillies. that Dude in the Wheelchair can be named King for all I care, Like Trump, that is his dream.

Reinhardt wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

How many German citizens are suing their government?

Not sued by citizens that I am aware of , but strongly protested against.

A Swiss group is suing their government on the grounds that increasing numbers of hot summer days, and higher temperatures when they occur, are a hazard to the health of the elderly, as well as small children and sick people. https://www.klimaseniorinnen.ch/english/

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

So under your own admission, the EPA was circumventing democracy. And you’re ok with that?

boggles the mind how people carping about the tyranny of an unelected Supreme Court are pissed at said unelected court for punting a decision back to the elected branch of the government.

flyguy89 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

So under your own admission, the EPA was circumventing democracy. And you’re ok with that?

boggles the mind how people carping about the tyranny of an unelected Supreme Court are pissed at said unelected court for punting a decision back to the elected branch of the government.

Need to read the Constitution, my friend. The executive branch is charged with implementing and enforcing the law, and like Congress, is an elected branch.

What the Supreme Court has done, is to transfer the decision from the elected branch that would carry out the EPA policy, to one that is hopelessly dysfunctional and under the influence of special interests, in the form of lobbying. Which the Court knows full well will not carry out the policy.

Frankly, the whole elected argument is nonsense, and always has been. In this case the Court ruled on a quirk of the wording of the Clean Air Act, that reinterpreted the intent of Congress. It has the power to do that, and the original writers of that Act are not here to object. But we can and will object on their behalf.

The ultimate question is, in our American democracy, is the will of the people being carried out, or the will of a political party? In both EPA and Dobbs, the will of the public is the opposite of the Court's ruling. Both EPA and Dobbs are about a reduction of the public good, in the eyes of said public. So you have to wonder about the motivation involved.

Avatar2go wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

So under your own admission, the EPA was circumventing democracy. And you’re ok with that?

boggles the mind how people carping about the tyranny of an unelected Supreme Court are pissed at said unelected court for punting a decision back to the elected branch of the government.

Need to read the Constitution, my friend. The executive branch is charged with implementing and enforcing the law, and like Congress, is an elected branch.

What the Supreme Court has done, is to transfer the decision from the elected branch that would carry out the EPA policy, to one that is hopelessly dysfunctional and under the influence of special interests, in the form of lobbying. Which the Court knows full well will not carry out the policy.

Frankly, the whole elected argument is nonsense, and always has been. In this case the Court ruled on a quirk of the wording of the Clean Air Act, that reinterpreted the intent of Congress. It has the power to do that, and the original writers of that Act are not here to object. But we can and will object on their behalf.

The ultimate question is, in our American democracy, is the will of the people being carried out, or the will of a political party? In both EPA and Dobbs, the will of the public is the opposite of the Court's ruling. Both EPA and Dobbs are about a reduction of the public good, in the eyes of said public. So you have to wonder about the motivation involved.

I don’t think your subjective delegitimization of Congress has any relevance to the letter of the law and process. You would be better off simply arguing that this current Congress won’t act as you see fit and that’s bad. And important to note here as well that the ruling does not prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions as is being erroneously reported. Rather is prohibits the regulation of emissions via a very specific mechanism of the Clean Air Act that the administration isn’t even currently using to regulate CO2.

This where the extremes of politics end up joining—the system is rigged and corrupt, it’s can’t give what we want, so it must be delegitimized and ignore the voters. It’s voters, not the mysterious “rich guys”, that elect our officials. The “rich guys” are either good, if they’re on our side and evil, hidden powers, if we disagree with them.

The EPA, to my knowledge, is not elected, not accountable to the voters and mostly populated with civil servants. Like any bureaucracy, there devoted to expanding their little empires and exercising their powers rathe arbitrarily. Oft times incompetently, see below. Saying the President or V-P are accountable to the voters is meaningless. Voters that are knowledgeable of specific EPA rulings are rare and usually harmed or benefited by the actions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

The Congress and state legislatures need to act in definitive, clearly enunciated laws giving any administrative entity their powers to act. The CAA never, until the Obama Administration and Mass v. EPA, considered GHG as a pollutant under the law to be regulated. If the voters want GHG to be regulated, the voters can vote in a Congress and demand action. The “quirk” of the wording is exactly what the law turns on.

flyguy89 wrote:

I don’t think your subjective delegitimization of Congress has any relevance to the letter of the law and process. You would be better off simply arguing that this current Congress won’t act as you see fit and that’s bad. And important to note here as well that the ruling does not prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions as is being erroneously reported. Rather is prohibits the regulation of emissions via a very specific mechanism of the Clean Air Act that the administration isn’t even currently using to regulate CO2.

Please note I haven't delegitimatized the institution of Congress. I've only pointed out the forces at work that prevent it from carrying out the will of the people.

And as explained here, the ruling limits the definition of BERS, so as to exclude alternative sources of energy as a best reduction measure for greenhouse gases. This is done by an intereptation of the original Clean Air Act wording, to apply BESR on a per-case basis. The Court holds that this means BESR must apply only to the technology in use at the plant, and not comparitively to other available technologies. Which eliminates the potential for a comparitive cap and trade system.

Many people believe this to be incorrect, that in fact the intent of defining BERS was specifically to allow the EPA policy to evolve with advances in technology. It's not clear that Congress intended to create technology lanes, such that EPA could only address coal, with coal emissions reduction technologies. But that is how the Court has interpreted the Act. Most people would say that is a re-interpreting of the original Congressional intent.

Be that as it may, in our system the Supreme Court has the last word, so it doesn't matter what the original Congressional intent was, or whether the public agrees. But it must be understood by the Court, that such an interpretation will be seen as incorrect, by the majority of Americans who support greater use of alternative energy. And that those people would rightfully question the motivation.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

This where the extremes of politics end up joining—the system is rigged and corrupt, it’s can’t give what we want, so it must be delegitimized and ignore the voters. It’s voters, not the mysterious “rich guys”, that elect our officials. The “rich guys” are either good, if they’re on our side and evil, hidden powers, if we disagree with them.

This argument is disengenous, as clearly some 80% of the voters support increased use of alternative energy, but a handful of Senators can block it. This is what I meant by carrying out the will of the party, rather than that of the people.

The EPA, to my knowledge, is not elected, not accountable to the voters and mostly populated with civil servants. Like any bureaucracy, there devoted to expanding their little empires and exercising their powers rathe arbitrarily. Oft times incompetently, see below. Saying the President or V-P are accountable to the voters is meaningless. Voters that are knowledgeable of specific EPA rulings are rare and usually harmed or benefited by the actions.

This argument makes no sense. Congress is accountable but the President is not? The EPA is operated by the executive branch, who are elected. The notion of an unaccountable bureaucracy is popular with Trump supporters, but is clearly not the reality. Trump was unable to overturn the election because the bureaucracy followed the law, and were accountable.

The Congress and state legislatures need to act in definitive, clearly enunciated laws giving any administrative entity their powers to act. The CAA never, until the Obama Administration and Mass v. EPA, considered GHG as a pollutant under the law to be regulated. If the voters want GHG to be regulated, the voters can vote in a Congress and demand action. The “quirk” of the wording is exactly what the law turns on.

Congress wrote the Clean Air Act specifically with an evolving BESR definition, because they understood both pollutants & technology would emerge and evolve, and EPA policy would need to emerge and evolve with it. That is what the EPA has done, and that policy has the support of some 80% of Americans. The Court has chosen to interpret BESR in a narrow & limited fashion, that the majority believes was not the original intent of the Act, or of Congress.

The net effect of this is to throw up a roadblock, saying that Congress must confirm what Congress has already said, in the minds of most people. But special interests will allow a handful of Senators to also throw up a roadblock. So in the end, nothing will be done. Which is the obvious intent, and why the action is seen as political. It's a way to carry out the will of the party, instead of the people.

Avatar2go wrote:

Please note I haven't delegitimatized the institution of Congress. I've only pointed out the forces at work that prevent it from carrying out the will of the people.

Perhaps wasn’t your intent, but the argument you’re making is predicated upon a subjective assertion that Congress isn’t carrying out the will of the people and therefore cannot be trusted with power that fundamentally emanates from it.

Avatar2go wrote:

Which eliminates the potential for a comparitive cap and trade system.

And rightfully so. Such a far-reaching and fundamentally transformative policy as a cap-and-trade system (which I don’t necessarily oppose) should require a specific delegation from Congress.

Avatar2go wrote:

Many people believe this to be incorrect, that in fact the intent of defining BERS was specifically to allow the EPA policy to evolve with advances in technology. It's not clear that Congress intended to create technology lanes, such that EPA could only address coal, with coal emissions reduction technologies. But that is how the Court has interpreted the Act. Most people would say that is a re-interpreting of the original Congressional intent.

And there are many who disagree. 1963 was quite some time ago, but it wasn’t THAT long ago to where there wasn’t even a conception that alternative means of energy wouldn’t exist. Wind, solar, nuclear and hydro were all extent. The statute could very conceivably have been written to include them or yet-to-be-developed technologies were that the intent.

Avatar2go wrote:

that such an interpretation will be seen as incorrect, by the majority of Americans who support greater use of alternative energy. And that those people would rightfully question the motivation.

And this ruling does nothing to preclude the further adoption of alternative energy. I suspect the majority will find that this ruling changes little.

scbriml wrote:

USCS on a roll - taking America back to the 1960s. Maybe that's what Trump meant by MAGA.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

I guess the rest of the world has to go down with the demise of a once great country…..

The discussion about either EPA or SCOTUS being unelected is pointless. SCOTUS members are nominated by the president and elected by the senate, both are elected by the people. EPA as a federal agency answers to the president and must follow federal law.
That's how this whole system of judiciary - legislative - executive is designed.

The main question in this case was whether EPA's regulations followed the law. SCOTUS is of the opinion that they did not, choosing a very narrow interpretation of the law that I, personally, don't agree with.

The bigger underlying question is if SCOTUS - or at least some of its members - are pushing an agenda to reduce the executive's power. From a GOP point of view, this would make sense as it's much easier for them to maintain a sufficient share of the senate's seats than to provide the next president.

Forcing congress to decide on minor issues can be a method to reduce its effectiveness. Similarly, it is possible (though currently not the case) to render SCOTUS ineffective by filing a large number of trivial cases.
However, assuming the respective branch doesn't collapse under the workload, such moves can also increase their power relative to the executive. There's a fine balance to be struck here.

mxaxai wrote:

The discussion about either EPA or SCOTUS being unelected is pointless. SCOTUS members are nominated by the president and elected by the senate, both are elected by the people. EPA as a federal agency answers to the president and must follow federal law.
That's how this whole system of judiciary - legislative - executive is designed.

The main question in this case was whether EPA's regulations followed the law. SCOTUS is of the opinion that they did not, choosing a very narrow interpretation of the law that I, personally, don't agree with.

The bigger underlying question is if SCOTUS - or at least some of its members - are pushing an agenda to reduce the executive's power. From a GOP point of view, this would make sense as it's much easier for them to maintain a sufficient share of the senate's seats than to provide the next president.

Forcing congress to decide on minor issues can be a method to reduce its effectiveness. Similarly, it is possible (though currently not the case) to render SCOTUS ineffective by filing a large number of trivial cases.
However, assuming the respective branch doesn't collapse under the workload, such moves can also increase their power relative to the executive. There's a fine balance to be struck here.

Democrats and some moderate Republicans want the balance the Founding Fathers wrote about. Leadership in the Republican party is fighting that. They want a very strong executive and weak or non-existent judiciary and legislative. CPAC just held their annual conference in Hungary and praised strong-man dictator Orban. Similarly, the MAGA wing (who are firmly in control of the Republican party) praised Putin for his strength and courage. This is what they want. They want one man to rule us all. Not some sill old piece of paper.

https://www.ft.com/content/fd870fa9-007 ... 2aa2a35767
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... mary-rally
https://www.american.edu/sis/news/20220 ... remism.cfm
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/viktor-orb ... -decisive/

flyguy89 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Please note I haven't delegitimatized the institution of Congress. I've only pointed out the forces at work that prevent it from carrying out the will of the people.

Perhaps wasn’t your intent, but the argument you’re making is predicated upon a subjective assertion that Congress isn’t carrying out the will of the people and therefore cannot be trusted with power that fundamentally emanates from it.

Avatar2go wrote:

Which eliminates the potential for a comparitive cap and trade system.

And rightfully so. Such a far-reaching and fundamentally transformative policy as a cap-and-trade system (which I don’t necessarily oppose) should require a specific delegation from Congress.

Avatar2go wrote:

Many people believe this to be incorrect, that in fact the intent of defining BERS was specifically to allow the EPA policy to evolve with advances in technology. It's not clear that Congress intended to create technology lanes, such that EPA could only address coal, with coal emissions reduction technologies. But that is how the Court has interpreted the Act. Most people would say that is a re-interpreting of the original Congressional intent.

And there are many who disagree. 1963 was quite some time ago, but it wasn’t THAT long ago to where there wasn’t even a conception that alternative means of energy wouldn’t exist. Wind, solar, nuclear and hydro were all extent. The statute could very conceivably have been written to include them or yet-to-be-developed technologies were that the intent.

Avatar2go wrote:

that such an interpretation will be seen as incorrect, by the majority of Americans who support greater use of alternative energy. And that those people would rightfully question the motivation.

And this ruling does nothing to preclude the further adoption of alternative energy. I suspect the majority will find that this ruling changes little.

All comes down to the fact that the Court is ruling on a technicality in the wording, to block a policy that the overwhelming majority of Americans support. You say that many agree with this action, but they are still in the minority, by a substantial margin.

Also this same majority of Americans, perceive this action to be in favor of the special interests and climate deniers, that have blocked this legislation in Congress, and will continue to do so.

You say that Congress could have explicitly written alternative energy into the law. The majority of Americans would say they did exactly that, in the form of BERS, which was clearly meant to encompass future technologies. But now narrowly interpreted by the Court to be exclusive of those technologies.

Also, I doubt that in the 1970's, Congress foresaw the rise of climate deniers, who would actively work to reverse their intent in creating the Clean Air Act. The majority of Americans are also mystified by this development. It's irrational in the face of overwhelming evidence. But so is the notion of election deniers, which arose within the same group, and the same party.

So although the issue can be spun as much as you wish, people are able to see pretty clearly what is going on, and who is behind it. The solution will have to be in the ballot box, as that's how our country works. No matter how much one disagrees, the legal process is defined in the Constitution, and you cannot overturn the law because you disagree with the outcome. Even though we see that this same group of climate and election deniers, has just attempted to do exactly that, in their own favor.

For most Americans, that contradiction is very stark. But something for us to work to correct in the future.

can the law be re-written to clarify the section/wording the court has issue with?

hashtagconfused wrote:

can the law be re-written to clarify the section/wording the court has issue with?

It can but (re-)writing laws requires congress to agree on a thing.

mxaxai wrote:

hashtagconfused wrote:

can the law be re-written to clarify the section/wording the court has issue with?

It can but (re-)writing laws requires congress to agree on a thing.

It would be blocked in the Senate, because there are enough Senators that support the coal industry and deny the reality of climate change. For West Virginia in particular it's a cornerstone industry, because of the dependence on coal exports within their economy.

If the disputed EPA policy went into effect, utilities would be incentivized to consider other generation sources besides coal, since the policy places a premium on least greenhouse gas production (the original Congressional purpose and language of BERS (Best Emissions Reduction System)).

By requiring that BERS not include sources other than those currently employed by utilities at a given plant, the existing coal infrastructure is sustained, with no forward momentum to advance. Which is the overall goal of the industry.

So if there is a coal-fired plant, the EPA can apply BERS within the scope of emission reduction technologies specific to coal. But cannot encourage the plant to move away from coal, nor use a system of cap & trade by which a coal plant could purchase credits from less emissive technologies, to balance their greenhouse emissions. In short, status quo.

Avatar2go wrote:

All comes down to the fact that the Court is ruling on a technicality in the wording,

So, in other words, the law.

Avatar2go wrote:

to block a policy that the overwhelming majority of Americans support.

Which is a disingenuous statement given the nuance in opinion held by the public regarding clean energy and the fact that, again, the ruling does not preclude the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions or encouraging the development of clean energy.

Avatar2go wrote:

You say that Congress could have explicitly written alternative energy into the law. The majority of Americans would say they did exactly that, in the form of BERS, which was clearly meant to encompass future technologies.

They did? Where did they say that?

The idea the President is accountable for actions of almost a half million bureaucrats is risible. Today, the Federal Register published 355 pages of administrative documents. The Register is well over 70,000 pages. Congressmen put their name on a bill. We know who sponsored it and who voted for it. Not great but accountable.

And, yes, saying the Congress is so corrupted, so unresponsive to the public is delegitimization and every bit the equal of Trump & Sanders saying it’s “rigged”.

flyguy89 wrote:

So, in other words, the law.

In other words, a new interpretation of the law, the origin of which is based on a technicality, as noted.

Which is a disingenuous statement given the nuance in opinion held by the public regarding clean energy and the fact that, again, the ruling does not preclude the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions or encouraging the development of clean energy.

It's your statement that is disengenous. The EPA is in fact constrained from reducing greenhouse emissions, and from encouraging the adoption of alternative energy. Encouragement & reduction were the whole point of the policy that was disputed. The policy mechanism was comparison to alternative sources that have much lower greenhouse emissions. That comparison, in the form of cap & trade, is what was struck down by the court. And what was undesirable within the coal industry. Those are the simple facts.

Further, the "nuance" in public opinion is a very clear and small minority. But this argument being put forward, is not surprising. Trump would not accept that he lost the popular vote in 2016, and does not accept that he lost the election in 2020. This is the same thinking and mentality, that we do not have to accept the majority opinion, if we can find a way around it.

They did? Where did they say that?

Wow. As explained many times here now, it's in the very definition of Best Emission Reduction System (BERS). You can't get any more "best" than zero emissions. And that is why this definition was attacked in the dispute, and constrained by the court to eliminate the zero-emissions comparison. With the zero option ruled out, "best" can only only mean "best for coal". Which was the goal of that industry.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The idea the President is accountable for actions of almost a half million bureaucrats is risible. Today, the Federal Register published 355 pages of administrative documents. The Register is well over 70,000 pages. Congressmen put their name on a bill. We know who sponsored it and who voted for it. Not great but accountable.

The idea that the president is responsible for the lives of a million soldiers as commander-in-chief is equally entertaining. In both cases it comes down to the choice of capable subordinates (secretaries, administrators, generals, ...) to delegate tasks. If they make mistakes, the president can be held accountable.

Members of congress also delegate. Each of them has staff to review and write documents for them, few if any congressmen (or women) have the time to actually work on each bill they vote on. They all specialize in some topics and often simply follow the party line on other topics.

"Supplies at Lake Mead and Lake Powell are dangerously low, holding just more than a quarter of their total capacities — and threatening the dams’ ability to generate electricity and provide water to its nearly 40 million users." USA Today July 6, 2022


Just saying that with the chance hydro electricity goes bust in the west and LNG exports make gas turbine power plants too expensive to run, we might be glad to have a few coal power plants still running for the next couple of years. Otherwise we(US) are going to be in the same boat as Europe.

SO maybe this ruling isn't so bad.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

"Supplies at Lake Mead and Lake Powell are dangerously low, holding just more than a quarter of their total capacities — and threatening the dams’ ability to generate electricity and provide water to its nearly 40 million users." USA Today July 6, 2022


Just saying that with the chance hydro electricity goes bust in the west and LNG exports make gas turbine power plants too expensive to run, we might be glad to have a few coal power plants still running for the next couple of years. Otherwise we(US) are going to be in the same boat as Europe.

SO maybe this ruling isn't so bad.

The lack of water in the West is a consequence of the climate change the EPA is trying to prevent. Burning coal that promotes that change, then answering the problem with burning more coal, is an example of the irrationality I mentioned.

That's just what Europe thought too. But what comes first - the chicken or the egg? They guessed wrong and they are reactivating closed coal plants and praying that Putin doesn't turn the lights out. Now that is an example of irrationality.

We can't close all the US coal plants until adequate power supplies or storage are available. It will be years before that happens even with BBB. But in the meantime, the southwest appears to be really close to rolling blackouts. Buy candles and batteries.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

That's just what Europe thought too. But what comes first - the chicken or the egg? They guessed wrong and they are reactivating closed coal plants and praying that Putin doesn't turn the lights out. Now that is an example of irrationality.

We can't close all the US coal plants until adequate power supplies or storage are available. It will be years before that happens even with BBB. But in the meantime, the southwest appears to be really close to rolling blackouts. Buy candles and batteries.

What you have highlighted is that the Fossil Fuel industries have spent years trying to hold back the coming Renewable Energy revolution, and everyone is paying the prices for the inability of the Fossil Fuel market to handle big swings in the economy, through recession or pandemic.

So what do we do now? California doesn't want nuclear. doesn't want oil. doesn't want nat gas.

In that liberal bastion with a $100 billion dollar budget surplus and where the fossil fuel industry has zero political capital I ask - how come they aren't already fossil fuel free?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

"Supplies at Lake Mead and Lake Powell are dangerously low, holding just more than a quarter of their total capacities — and threatening the dams’ ability to generate electricity and provide water to its nearly 40 million users." USA Today July 6, 2022


Just saying that with the chance hydro electricity goes bust in the west and LNG exports make gas turbine power plants too expensive to run, we might be glad to have a few coal power plants still running for the next couple of years. Otherwise we(US) are going to be in the same boat as Europe.

SO maybe this ruling isn't so bad.

Fossile fuel (and nuclear) powerplants still need a heat sink. Usually, that's either river or ocean water. If rivers run dry, good luck running those. France is already running into problems with their nuclear plants: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wa ... 022-05-25/

I'm also sure that you're aware that coal is already negligible in California. California stood at 59% renewables* in 2020, the remainder is mostly natural gas. Nevada gets about one third of their electricity from renewables and about two thirds from natural gas. Only Arizona still has a significant albeit shrinking percentage of coal (13% in 2021), with the rest being split equally between renewables and natural gas.

*including nuclear

Gas prices will stabilize once the worldwide political situation calms down. There's plenty available in the US, they just need to adjust their production which can't keep up with the rapid shifts in demand.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

That's just what Europe thought too. But what comes first - the chicken or the egg? They guessed wrong and they are reactivating closed coal plants and praying that Putin doesn't turn the lights out. Now that is an example of irrationality.

We can't close all the US coal plants until adequate power supplies or storage are available. It will be years before that happens even with BBB. But in the meantime, the southwest appears to be really close to rolling blackouts. Buy candles and batteries.

I don't think the EPA was suggesting that all fossil fuel (or even coal) plants be closed. They were aiming to reduce our current carbon footprint in half, over the next 10 to 20 years. The method proposed to incentivize that was cap & trade.

And as others here have noted, we still are at the mercy of world political events and the fossil fuel market, just as we were in the 1970's. Despite all the rhetoric about US energy independence by fossil fuel development, that's always been an illusion within a worldwide market.

The Europeans have the same problem. It won't really change until we get to over 75% alternative energy, and that will take many years. The longer we kick the can down the road, the longer it will take, and the more suffering there will be.

Arguing that moving to alternative energy is a mistake, or the cause of these problems, truly is irrational.

I agree with the need to move and move quick.
But I don't have much hope. The only time I've seen America make a "all hands" effort to save energy was during the 1973 oil embargo. We are so divided now that I can't see that happening again.

No politician is willing to make the hard choices for fear of losing their job. They all saw what happened to Hillary Clinton with the truth about coal. And that goes for the left too - IMO we could be completely coal free in power generation now if they had allowed natural gas as the logical bridge fuel. Same with the NIMBY actions on windmills, solar, and municipal waste gasification/incineration that Europe uses.

But now we are stuck keeping those remaining coal plants running to keep the lights on. Especially if those hydro plants in the western US cease production due to low water levels.

Avatar2go wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

So, in other words, the law.

In other words, a new interpretation of the law, the origin of which is based on a technicality, as noted.

As the courts exist to do. Interpret the law.

Avatar2go wrote:

Which is a disingenuous statement given the nuance in opinion held by the public regarding clean energy and the fact that, again, the ruling does not preclude the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions or encouraging the development of clean energy.

It's your statement that is disengenous. The EPA is in fact constrained from reducing greenhouse emissions, and from encouraging the adoption of alternative energy.

As it always has been and should be. Constrained within the bounds of what the law allows them to do, which in no way negates the fact that they remain able to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Avatar2go wrote:

Encouragement & reduction were the whole point of the policy that was disputed. The policy mechanism was comparison to alternative sources that have much lower greenhouse emissions. That comparison, in the form of cap & trade, is what was struck down by the court.

Correct. The manner in which they were proposing to use a specific policy mechanism was ruled as being outside the powers delegated to them. No roll back to the 1950s, no dismantling of its mandate to regulate pollution and GHGs or its broad other abilities to encourage clean energy development.

Avatar2go wrote:

Further, the "nuance" in public opinion is a very clear and small minority.

It is clear. The vast majority want clean energy and less pollution…but public opinion unsurprisingly starts to fragment as to the means of achieving that, at what level of intensity, and what cost.

The fundamental disagreement here is over the new interpretation of the Court vs the original intent of Congress. If Congress did not intend for the EPA to use BERS to include alternative energy as a best means of reduction for greenhouse gas emissions, then the Court is correct in their ruling.

But if as most people believe, it was the intent of Congress for BERS to include future technologies, and for that to be used to reduce greenhouse emissions, then the Court's ruling is an altering of Congress' intent. Which would be an example of the judicial legislating they claim to oppose, and hypocritical to say the least.

What most believe doesn’t matter, it’s what was written in the law, not what the EPA’s interpretation, the LAW as written in 1970. Congress did not, could not, have expected the EPA to regulate carbon emissions then. Congress could write a new law specifying how the EPA should do so. Laws are written for reason—we expect them to predictable and clear.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

What most believe doesn’t matter, it’s what was written in the law, not what the EPA’s interpretation, the LAW as written in 1970. Congress did not, could not, have expected the EPA to regulate carbon emissions then. Congress could write a new law specifying how the EPA should do so. Laws are written for reason—we expect them to predictable and clear.

Unfortunately as written by John Roberts, cleaner air is in the interest of all people. However it is not in the interest of the greedy Fossil Fuel companies and their pocketed disgraces on Capitol Hill.