SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
And there we have it. Another climate change denialist climbs out of the woodwork.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
And there we have it. Another climate change denialist climbs out of the woodwork.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Most (99%+) people who understand the science believe that CO2 and methane are causing climate change that is a significant threat to life on earth. There is no debate among scientists.
The remainder of the people fall into the "denier" category and there are special places for them to discuss this. This forum has a thread for climate change denial. I suggest you go there.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Excess CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change, therefore it is polluting the atmosphere. That is what pollution is. What is there to debate?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The US supreme court poses a real threat to US democracy | Richard Wolffe
They order states to remove sensible gun safety measures. Then they deny women reproductive rights by pretending that states can do whatever they want. They say that presidents cannot limit carbon emissions to tackle the climate crisis. And now they are ready to change the way we elect presidents. Whatever you call the current crusade of this supreme court, their approach is not conservative. There is nothing stable or traditional about throwing out a half-century of civil rights and quite possibly a century of democratic practice.
This is a radical bunch of ideologues who have spent years projecting themselves onto their critics. For decades, the Republican party has picked activist judges while pretending to correct the notion of activist judges on the other side of the divide. It’s the same excuse that Fox News used for decades as it cosplayed the shows of an actual news division: it was just correcting the bias on the other side. If you can convince the suckers that the other side is misbehaving, you can justify pretty much anything.
They order states to remove sensible gun safety measures. Then they deny women reproductive rights by pretending that states can do whatever they want. They say that presidents cannot limit carbon emissions to tackle the climate crisis. And now they are ready to change the way we elect presidents. Whatever you call the current crusade of this supreme court, their approach is not conservative. There is nothing stable or traditional about throwing out a half-century of civil rights and quite possibly a century of democratic practice.
This is a radical bunch of ideologues who have spent years projecting themselves onto their critics. For decades, the Republican party has picked activist judges while pretending to correct the notion of activist judges on the other side of the divide. It’s the same excuse that Fox News used for decades as it cosplayed the shows of an actual news division: it was just correcting the bias on the other side. If you can convince the suckers that the other side is misbehaving, you can justify pretty much anything.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Republicans May Have Set Themselves Up for a Showdown With the Supreme Court Opinion | Republicans May Have Set Themselves Up for a Showdown With the Supreme Court
There are actually two Republican critiques of the administrative state — and they are fundamentally in contradiction with each other. One seeks to restrain its power, the other to wield it against new targets.
By contrast, a move by a second Trump administration (or a DeSantis administration) to seize and transform the American administrative state could put it on a collision course with a conservative judiciary. After all, if an executive branch agency exceeds its power when it makes rules under a broad grant of power from Congress, surely it exceeds them when it ignores explicit instructions from Congress, which a wholesale politicization of the administrative state would certainly do.
This is where the two visions from the right could come into sharp conflict. Would a conservative Supreme Court rebuke a conservative administration if it acts outside the bounds of what the court sees as legitimate? It’s not clear.
There are actually two Republican critiques of the administrative state — and they are fundamentally in contradiction with each other. One seeks to restrain its power, the other to wield it against new targets.
By contrast, a move by a second Trump administration (or a DeSantis administration) to seize and transform the American administrative state could put it on a collision course with a conservative judiciary. After all, if an executive branch agency exceeds its power when it makes rules under a broad grant of power from Congress, surely it exceeds them when it ignores explicit instructions from Congress, which a wholesale politicization of the administrative state would certainly do.
This is where the two visions from the right could come into sharp conflict. Would a conservative Supreme Court rebuke a conservative administration if it acts outside the bounds of what the court sees as legitimate? It’s not clear.
Sure, they blocked Trump's termination of the "Dreamers" executive order. Conservative judges follow the law and the Constitution, not politics.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I wasn't able to find a law behind the so-called "major questions doctrine". What is it?
Specifically, what would be the law that directly or indirectly instructs the courts to protect the coal industry from a regulation for the reason that this regulation might have an impact on the choice of technology for power plants?
Not much point in further debate except to say that in a case before them they had the power to rule as to whether the Executive Branch agency exceeded the authority given by Congress. It is decided and it's up to Congress to act if they so choose. If you have more interest in the actual answer to your question, explore the arguments presented in the case before making a judgement. I think you will find it in the separation of powers in the Constitution, not statutory law.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? They DID act.
Clean Air Act (United States)
The problem is that the court has been replaced with nut-job theocrats.
Before the right-wing nuts took over the Supreme Court upheld that the EPA could regulate CO2 emissions.
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency
Last edited:
Norbert
TSLA will win
Sure, this is about that the conservative judges "had the power". That I agree with. They had the power 6:3.
I've been reading several articles about "major questions doctrine", and there is no indication that such a law (or part of the Constitution) exists. My impression is that this is just their perferred way or chosen method of interpreting Congress. I would need a long time to find a law that doesn't exist.... or prove its non-existence.
Apparently you don't know such a law either, and are just speculating that the ruling is based on law or Constitution as opposed to politics.
Norbert
TSLA will win
mspohr
Well-Known Member
"Major Questions" require major amounts of campaign contributions. They've finally collected enough.
Norbert
TSLA will win
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Wild species support half of world’s population, report finds
Wild plants, animals, fungi and algae support half of the world’s population but their future use is threatened by overexploitation, according to a new assessment by leading scientists. From the 10,000 known wild species that humans harvest for food to the firewood that one in three people need for cooking, nature is key to the livelihoods and survival of billions of people in developed and developing countries, says a new UN report.
Examples of the damaging practices include unsustainable fishing and logging, which have left one in three fisheries overexploited around the world and one in 10 tree species threatened with extinction. Plant groups such as cacti, orchids and cycads are particularly at risk, and unsustainable hunting has been identified as a threat to the survival of 1,341 wild mammal species, especially pronounced in large-bodied species with low reproduction rates. The report also highlights lessons from sustainable practices around the world. The authors point to the early recovery of bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean after the collapse in stocks in the 1990s and 2000s, and the more sustainable fishing of the enormous pirarucu fish in the Amazon, which involves community-based management.
Wild plants, animals, fungi and algae support half of the world’s population but their future use is threatened by overexploitation, according to a new assessment by leading scientists. From the 10,000 known wild species that humans harvest for food to the firewood that one in three people need for cooking, nature is key to the livelihoods and survival of billions of people in developed and developing countries, says a new UN report.
Examples of the damaging practices include unsustainable fishing and logging, which have left one in three fisheries overexploited around the world and one in 10 tree species threatened with extinction. Plant groups such as cacti, orchids and cycads are particularly at risk, and unsustainable hunting has been identified as a threat to the survival of 1,341 wild mammal species, especially pronounced in large-bodied species with low reproduction rates. The report also highlights lessons from sustainable practices around the world. The authors point to the early recovery of bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean after the collapse in stocks in the 1990s and 2000s, and the more sustainable fishing of the enormous pirarucu fish in the Amazon, which involves community-based management.
That is precisely one of their powers... Accusing them of political motivation solves nothing - especially without proof.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds
Exclusive: Non-animal proteins can play critical role tackling climate crisis, says Boston Consulting Group
www.theguardian.com
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
We have plenty of obvious proof, you just don't want to see it.
I doubt that you can prove motivation. You just disagree with the outcome. That "proves" nothing.
Similar threads
