The Clean Air Act was written explicitly to handle new scientific information about pollutants.
Congress in 1970 literally said “we don’t know everything that harms humans yet, so we’re creating a process to regulate threats as science discovers them.”
Pretending greenhouse gases don’t qualify because Hamilton didn’t know about CO2 is legally absurd and everyone involved knows it. The question isn’t whether the argument has merit (it doesn’t). The question is whether the Supreme Court is brazen enough to say black is white because power no longer requires pretense.
We’re watching institutions abandon legitimacy in real time, and the endangerment finding is just the next tile pulled from a democratic structure already collapsing.
It has always seemed weird to me that a country so in love with new technology that we choose to remain so behind when it comes to power generation. Had we subsidized renewables way back to the time President Carter installed solar panels on the White House, rather than the corporate welfare for the oil business, imagine where we would be today. Instead, China recognized the future profitability of non-oil-based electricity and is advancing rapidly in that area while we continue to embrace 19th century technology at our own peril.
Huge respect for David Robert’s for making complex topics accessible - BUT you are reading Massachusetts v EPA all wrong - not sure where you got your understanding of the court’s decision, but please read it.
The 2006 George W Bush EPA did not assert that the GHG’s were pollutants and the court not give that determination Chevron deference. Quite the opposite, EPA claimed GHGs were not CAA “pollutants” and the Court held that the CAA was so clear that Chevron deference did not apply. According to Justice Stevens’ opinion: “Because EPA believes that Congress did not intend it to regulate substances that contribute to climate change, the agency maintains that carbon dioxide is not an ‘air pollutant’ within the meaning of the provision.. . . . The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading.”
Also, there was no “trial” at the Supreme Court (SCOTUS trials only happen for disputes between states, almost never).
And the 1970 Congress included “climate” in the definition of impacts to public wellfare.
I know a little but about this, having taught environmental law for thirty years.
The Clean Air Act was written explicitly to handle new scientific information about pollutants.
Congress in 1970 literally said “we don’t know everything that harms humans yet, so we’re creating a process to regulate threats as science discovers them.”
Pretending greenhouse gases don’t qualify because Hamilton didn’t know about CO2 is legally absurd and everyone involved knows it. The question isn’t whether the argument has merit (it doesn’t). The question is whether the Supreme Court is brazen enough to say black is white because power no longer requires pretense.
We’re watching institutions abandon legitimacy in real time, and the endangerment finding is just the next tile pulled from a democratic structure already collapsing.
—Johan
Keep pushing and keeping it real
Of course, absurd — logic left the building about 2016.
It has always seemed weird to me that a country so in love with new technology that we choose to remain so behind when it comes to power generation. Had we subsidized renewables way back to the time President Carter installed solar panels on the White House, rather than the corporate welfare for the oil business, imagine where we would be today. Instead, China recognized the future profitability of non-oil-based electricity and is advancing rapidly in that area while we continue to embrace 19th century technology at our own peril.
The thinking (sic): If you have loads of money (and a gated community), you won’t be affected.
Huge respect for David Robert’s for making complex topics accessible - BUT you are reading Massachusetts v EPA all wrong - not sure where you got your understanding of the court’s decision, but please read it.
The 2006 George W Bush EPA did not assert that the GHG’s were pollutants and the court not give that determination Chevron deference. Quite the opposite, EPA claimed GHGs were not CAA “pollutants” and the Court held that the CAA was so clear that Chevron deference did not apply. According to Justice Stevens’ opinion: “Because EPA believes that Congress did not intend it to regulate substances that contribute to climate change, the agency maintains that carbon dioxide is not an ‘air pollutant’ within the meaning of the provision.. . . . The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading.”
Also, there was no “trial” at the Supreme Court (SCOTUS trials only happen for disputes between states, almost never).
And the 1970 Congress included “climate” in the definition of impacts to public wellfare.
I know a little but about this, having taught environmental law for thirty years.