Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Norbert]

Geez! The Supreme Court can ONLY make rulings on points of law in cases that are before it. If a law is passed or, as in this case a regulation is issued, the court has no right to rule unless a case has been brought before it by a party with standing, and Cert acceptance) has been ruled.

What? The question is not if any court has a right to make a ruling on this matter (although that might be a good question as well).

The question is why any courts thought they *need* to make a ruling, considering this is a matter for Congress to decide.

I would seem to me that the courts would need a very good reason to interfere with Congress. I don't know if maybe a time-sensitive emergency would be a good reason, but in any case that doesn't appear to exist here. And it seems that this is not about the constitution, but supposedly about the correct interpretation of an authorization that was already given by Congress itself (where a literal interpretation appears to speak in favor of the EPA's authority).

 

[Norbert]

From what I have read so far, the appropriate way to handle this would be for the coal industry and West Virgina to lobby members of Congress for a bill that restricts the EPA in their favor.

I wouldn't be surprised if exactly that is what they tried a long time ago, it didn't work, so they tried their luck at the courts, until it landed in front of SCOTUS, where it got a boost from judges appointed by the president who says its all a hoax.

 

[SageBrush]

It would be worthwhile to read the ruling commentary. I'll hazard a guess that the SCOTUS trumple-dorks refuse to accept that CO2 is a pollutant.
Are they going to try and stop CARB from regulating CO2 next ?

 

[mspohr]

It would be worthwhile to read the ruling commentary. I'll hazard a guess that the SCOTUS trumple-dorks refuse to accept that CO2 is a pollutant.
Are they going to try and stop CARB from regulating CO2 next ?

Even if the Supremes felt that CO2 wasn't a pollutant, that's not something for them to decide. They are not scientists. They are political hacks. There is nothing in the Constitution about pollution on which they could base their decision.
Instead, they declared that CO2 is not a pollutant.

 

[SageBrush]

Even if the Supremes felt that CO2 wasn't a pollutant, that's not something for them to decide. They are not scientists. They are political hacks. There is nothing in the Constitution about pollution on which they could base their decision.
Instead, they declared that CO2 is not a pollutant.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm tempted to say that the EPA was brought into existence to regulate criteria pollutants. Maybe -- I haven't read the legislation but I do know that CARB authority to regulate CO2 has been challenged over the years, and CARB's right to regulate has EPA roots.

 

[Norbert]

Even if the Supremes felt that CO2 wasn't a pollutant, that's not something for them to decide. They are not scientists. They are political hacks. There is nothing in the Constitution about pollution on which they could base their decision.
Instead, they declared that CO2 is not a pollutant.

In the context of the Clean Air Act, CO2 seems to be considered a pollutant. Does this new ruling have a different opinion?

This is an article about the Clean Air Act Section 111(d):

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/section-111-d-of-the-clean-air-act_the-legal-foundation-for-strong-flexible-cost-effective-carbon-pollution-standards-for-existing-power-plants.pdf

For example, it contains this sentence:

Through this collaboration, EPA and the states can put in place strong standards that will drive cost-effective reductions in carbon
pollution and support our nation’s transition to a cleaner, safer, smarter power infrastructure.

And this:

Power plants are far and away the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United
States. In 2012, fossil fuel fired power plants emitted more than 2 billion metric tons of CO2e,
equivalent to 40% of U.S. carbon pollution and nearly one-third of total U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions.1

I'll try to check the text itself.

(EDIT: I had to change the text of this post to reflect that the source isn't the text of the Act itself.)

 

[SageBrush]

This is an article about the Clean Air Act Section 111(d):

Here is part of Wikipedia on the Clean Air act:

On-road vehicles regulations[edit]​

EPA sets standards for exhaust gases, evaporative emissions, air toxics, refueling vapor recovery, and vehicle inspection and maintenance for several classes of vehicles that travel on roadways. EPA's "light-duty vehicles" regulations cover passenger cars, minivans, passenger vans, pickup trucks, and SUVs. "Heavy-duty vehicles" regulations cover large trucks and buses. EPA first issued motorcycle emissions regulations in 1977 (42 FR 1122) and updated them in 2004 (69 FR 2397).

A national air quality standard was also legislated, with a list of regulated pollutants.

I honestly think that while CO2 should obviously be regulated, I'm not so sure it passes a very literal reading of the act.

 

[mspohr]

Here is part of Wikipedia on the Clean Air act:


A national air quality standard was also legislated, with a list of regulated pollutants.

I honestly think that while CO2 should obviously be regulated, I'm not so sure it passes a very literal reading of the act.

Literally, Exhaust gas

 

[Norbert]

Here is part of Wikipedia on the Clean Air act:


A national air quality standard was also legislated, with a list of regulated pollutants.

I honestly think that while CO2 should obviously be regulated, I'm not so sure it passes a very literal reading of the act.

Yes, I think you are going in the right direction there:

I'm afraid the article I quoted above simply assumes that Clean Air Act Section 111(d) also applies to CO2, instead of deriving that from the original text itself.

However reasonable that assumption may be, it seems that section is nevertheless part of the general legal dispute arising from "a very literal reading".

 

[SageBrush]

Literally, Exhaust gas

Yes, but so is oxygen. And water. And nitrogen. We should be able to agree on exhaust pollutants.

I think this boils down to the SCOTUS trumple-dorks being climate change denialists.

 

[DrGriz]

Yes, but so is oxygen. And water. And nitrogen. We should be able to agree on exhaust pollutants.

I think this boils down to the SCOTUS trumple-dorks being climate change denialists.

Or, they or their benefactors simply want to take down the EPA (and any government oversight of industry) regardless, and this is the first step.

 

[mspohr]

Yes, but so is oxygen. And water. And nitrogen. We should be able to agree on exhaust pollutants.

I think this boils down to the SCOTUS trumple-dorks being climate change denialists.

Exhaust gas includes the products of combustion... CO, CO2, NOx, SOx, partially burned hydrocarbons, H2O, particulates

 

[Norbert]

Yes, but so is oxygen. And water. And nitrogen. We should be able to agree on exhaust pollutants.

I think this boils down to the SCOTUS trumple-dorks being climate change denialists.

The way it sounds, maybe they imagine they are just politely asking to adress climate change without ending the coal and/or oil industry. Not seeing that this is denying reality beyond climate change. It will lead to a change much more ruthless in nature: the fate of economically obsolete technology.

 

[eevee-fan]

Exhaust gas includes the products of combustion... CO, CO2, NOx, SOx, partially burned hydrocarbons, H2O, particulates

Hydrogen ICE woud exhaust that plus water vapor too.

 

[patmurphey]

CO2 is the byproduct of animal respiration and a necessity for plant respiration. It is a real stretch to call it pollution. Whether combustion sources of it should be regulated is an entirely different subject. Current levels have not reached the optimum for plant life, nor have they reached levels that would directly harm animals.

 

[mspohr]

It’s democracy v plutocracy – this is the endgame for our planet | George Monbiot

The US supreme court is helping to destroy our climate. But it was a much smaller decision, closer to home, that was the final straw for me, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

In this case, the supreme court has strayed way beyond its mandate of interpreting the law, into the territory of the executive and the legislature: making the law. It is imposing policies that would never survive democratic scrutiny, if they were put to the vote. By seizing control of regulatory power, it sets a precedent that could stymie almost any democratic decision.

The supreme court’s ruling was neither random nor based on established legal principles. It arose from a concerted programme to replace democracy in the US with judicial dictatorship. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has documented, hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money (funds whose sources are unknown) were poured into the nomination and confirmation of the three judges appointed to the court by Donald Trump. Among the groups leading these campaigns was Americans for Prosperity, set up by the Koch brothers: oil tycoons with a long record of funding rightwing causes. As an investigation by Earth Uprising shows, there’s a strong correlation between the amount of oil and gas money US senators have received, and their approval of Trump’s supreme court justice nominations.

Since 1985, I’ve been told we don’t have time to change the system: we should concentrate only on single issues. But we’ve never had time not to change the system. In fact, because of the way in which social attitudes can suddenly tip, system change can happen much faster than incrementalism. Until we change our political systems, making it impossible for the rich to buy the decisions they want, we will lose not only individual cases. We will lose everything.

 

[mspohr]

CO2 is the byproduct of animal respiration and a necessity for plant respiration. It is a real stretch to call it pollution. Whether combustion sources of it should be regulated is an entirely different subject. Current levels have not reached the optimum for plant life, nor have they reached levels that would directly harm animals.

I think this post belongs in the climate change denial thread.

 

[DrGriz]

CO2 is the byproduct of animal respiration and a necessity for plant respiration. It is a real stretch to call it pollution. Whether combustion sources of it should be regulated is an entirely different subject. Current levels have not reached the optimum for plant life, nor have they reached levels that would directly harm animals.

Who here is calling it "pollution" (other than you)? It is a greenhouse gas and that's a problem directly threatening humans and other animals.

 

[JRP3]

CO2 is the byproduct of animal respiration and a necessity for plant respiration. It is a real stretch to call it pollution.

Fecal matter is a necessary byproduct of life but it can also be pollution if it ends up in your drinking water or other objectionable places. The definition of pollution is not as simplistic as you make it.

 

[Norbert]

CO2 is the byproduct of animal respiration and a necessity for plant respiration. It is a real stretch to call it pollution. Whether combustion sources of it should be regulated is an entirely different subject. Current levels have not reached the optimum for plant life, nor have they reached levels that would directly harm animals.

You mentioned the term "non-sequitur". This is one. Something that has positive effects can nevertheless also have negative effects. CO2 is polluting high in the atmosphere if it reaches the levels of concentration that it has already reached. At some time in the past, it was not a pollutant, but now it is.

Like many "poisons" are poisonous only above a certain level, and also occur naturally.

According to the dictionary, the word "pollutes" for example means "to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste". In this case, there is a contamination of the higher atmosphere with too much CO2.

If you want to argue literally, the pollutant is "too much CO2" rather than "CO2" as such in its natural occurance.

According to this article (sorry I haven't tried to verify if this is based on sound science, that would be another topic),
CO2 in yet higher levels can have these effects:

The Dangers of High Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels – Smart Air

At what levels does carbon dioxide (CO2) become dangerous? What are the health effects of high carbon dioxide (CO2) levels?

smartairfilters.com

Unlike dangerous PM2.5 pollution, low levels of CO2 are not dangerous. But at high levels, the CO2 can displace oxygen resulting in a variety of negative effects on humans.


Typical outdoor carbon dioxide levels range from 350-450 ppm (parts per million). But carbon dioxide will build up if people are in an enclosed, unventilated room.


At moderate levels, CO2 makes people tired, affects cognitive skills, and causes headaches. Studies show even moderate increases in CO2 levels from 600 ppm to 1000ppm decrease cognitive ability and decision making.


At very high levels, CO2 can make people sick or even die.

Not that this would happen in the current global pollution, but it illustrates that the answer to the question if CO2 is a "pollutant", and in which way, depends on the level of CO2.