Published: Tuesday, June 24 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
It is interesting how the DN and others of their political persuasion are
attempting to claim victory in yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court.
Yesterday's decision was the third time in a decade that the court sided
wit the EPA in restricting greenhouse-gas emissions. It probably will not be the
last.Those who oppose the EPA's approach to cutting emissions
will have to actually do something creative, like proposing new legislation,
instead of relying on the courts to do their bidding. If the critics want
something better, they need to abandon the refusal to address climate change,
that has prevailed in Congress, and propose a more economically rational
strategy. Doing nothing is not an option. The DN claims this is
"another example in which the Obama administration has found it more
convenient to impose administrative rules than to vet ideas through the
people’s representatives." President Obama has had to use
administrative rules for the simple desire to get something done rather than
wait for the doing nothing Congress to act. His previous attempts to "vet
ideas through the people’s representatives" have been met with total
silence from the other side. They made their bed.
It is refreshing to see that the Conservative American Supreme Court actualy
made a reasonable ruling in a major case of great importance to Americans.Only Alito and Thomas, the most Reactionary "Conservative" of
this bunch, held out according to their stubbornly reactionary
Re: ". . . local economies can suffer as plants are forced to shut down . .
. . [but] the state suffers from regular bouts with high concentrations of
polluted air that exacerbates health problems and may harm tourism."And, of course, it seems to completely escape the writer, that taxing
and regulating carbon has absolutely nothing to do with air pollution. As well
as the fact that the visible components of "polluted air" in inversions
along the Wasatch Front are composed almost entirely of naturally-occurring,
environmentally benign particulates, not carbon dioxide or noxious chemicals.It's remarkable how these completely unsupported and unsupportable
socialist memes from the radical environmental left have been permitted, even
encouraged, to permeate what passes for rational political discussion in certain
"Significantly, this week’s decision does not affect the EPA’s
proposed new rules designed to cut carbon emissions nationwide by 30 percent by
2030."In fact, it reinforced the EPAs right and authority to
regulate these. The attempt here to say this was a rejection of Obama policy or
practices is absurd and again a silly political stunt. Day in and out
government agencies struggle to comply with the intent of laws written,
sometimes more than a decade ago, and apply today's situation to those
laws. Often laws and conditions don't always easily mesh together nicely.
When the pieces don't fit nicely together, it is not an indication
nefarious intent. It hasn't during previous administrations, and it
doesn't now. It is a matter of interpretation, which we see here among
those who post regularly, people interpret intent differently all the time.Everyone interprets law, or even the gospel, through the lens of their
own personal bias. This does not mean they are trying to break the law, nor
change the gospel. It is silly to presume so.
This is the third time that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act
gives the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions. So can we lay off of all
the "Obama is being a dictator" nonsense?
" it seems to completely escape the writer, that taxing and regulating
carbon has absolutely nothing to do with air pollution".So...
per this, are we to assume other taxes equally don't impact consumer
behavior? How does that work? "Sin" taxes are also equally
ineffective? Tax incentives towards business - ineffective? Or is it taxes
with regard to carbon are the only ones that are pointless.Or should
I read this even more narrowly, that "carbon has absolutely nothing to do
with air pollution". Is that what is being proposed here. Burning carbon
fuels has nothing to do with pollution?Either way, I don't get
it. Even most conservatives acknowledge that tax policy impacts demand for
products. Even the most ardent denier acknowledges burning carbon based fuels
creates pollution. So I am really lost by this statement.
I look at the size of the USA in comparison to other country's and how far
away they are. Makes me think that their ego is the problem. I figure that even
if all the air polluting plants was out sourced, we'll steal have the same
air floating over us. I think that haze is moisture in the air from
evaporation, dust in the air is from the wind, forest fires will put smoke in
Re: "So can we lay off of all the "Obama is being a dictator"
nonsense?"Sure. As soon as Obama lays off being a dictator.And, it'll be interesting to see what happens when a new, more
intelligent, more America-friendly, and less radical Congress and/or President
begins dismantling all these dangerous, feckless Obama regulations.Here's betting radical liberals will then demand that we carve
Obama's harmful regulations into stone and carry them up to Mount Sinai,
rather than acknowledge a new President and a new Congress have the same
authority they claim for their Anointed One.
I agree... the LEGISLATURE writes law (NOT the EPA). If the EPA want's
new laws or regulations... they should come to Congress and convince a majority
of OUR representatives (not write their own).
Re: Procuradorfiscal "And, of course, it seems to completely escape the
writer, that taxing and regulating carbon has absolutely nothing to do with air
pollution. "Not true! Coal is a dirty fuel the burning of which
introduces a wide variety of pollutants including mercury and even radiation
(uranium is found in coal in abundance). Carbon tax leads to less coal burning
leads to less of these other harmful substances.
RE: Procuradorfiscal "Here's betting radical liberals will then
demand that we carve Obama's harmful regulations into stone and carry them
up to Mount Sinai, rather than acknowledge a new President and a new Congress
have the same authority they claim for their Anointed One."A
fine piece of creative writing, but we should be aware that all this stuff about
Obama's dictatorship is coming from a well-funded campaign (by the Kochs
and others) to attack him.
2 bits - "... the LEGISLATURE writes law (NOT the EPA). If the EPA
want's new laws or regulations... they should come to Congress and convince
a majority of OUR representatives (not write their own)."Apparently you don't understand the nature of this case. It was not the
EPA that brought this case trying to expand their reach, it was industry who
tried to stop the EPa from regulating greenhouse gas. Justice Antonin Scalia put
it for the majority, the EPA got "almost everything it wanted." So it is not the EPA but industry that needs to "come to Congress
and convince a majority of OUR representatives."procuradorfiscal
- "Here's betting radical liberals will then demand ...rather than
acknowledge a new President and a new Congress have the same authority they
claim for their Anointed One.A recent poll conducted for the
nonprofit Civil Society Institute (CSI) and Environmental Working Group
(EWG)showed that 94 percent of Americans – including 92 percent of
Republicans, 87 percent of Independents, and 98 percent of Democrats –
want political leadership on balancing calls for more energy production in U.S.
while protecting clean water and air. It seems the "Anointed One" has
won a few opinions.
The most interesting part of yesterday's ruling was Scalia's
opinion.One observation: "The curious wording in the majority
opinion will confuse people on exactly who won".If that ruling
was a victory for opponents of the EPA, I'll take it!
I hope when the left has done their job... and there are no new jobs being
created in the United States, and many of the jobs these posters currently have
are gone (because without reliable and abundant energy we can't produce
what we used to)... these posters are as happy as they are now.It's fun to pump the fist, and chant the chants, when it's all
rhetoric. But when the rhetoric becomes reality, and coal power is gone, and
many of our jobs are gone (because some companies can't pay the
skyrocketing utility prices)... we are happy sitting at home ready the paper and
posting our leftist rhetoric, while wondering where the jobs we used to do went.
RE: 2 bits "we are happy sitting at home ready the paper and posting our
leftist rhetoric, while wondering where the jobs we used to do went."Item: last month was the hottest May on record globally. If we do
nothing about global warming will our posterity be happy with biological
Re: ". . . we should be aware that all this stuff about Obama's
dictatorship is coming from a well-funded campaign (by the Kochs and others) to
attack him."Yeah? So?Obama is rightly being attacked
for the unconstitutional dictator he has become. Why should I [or Harry
Reid/Nancy Pelosi, for that matter] obsess over who funds a truthful attack?Liberals never seem to care much that nearly all attacks on
conservatives are funded by Soros-backed organizations.And,
they're not even true.
Re: Procuradorfiscal "It's remarkable how these completely
unsupported and unsupportable socialist memes from the radical environmental
left..."And lastly, this statement demonstrates that you,
Procuradorfiscal, have no idea who is doing what in the environmental movement.
I am a professional environmental economist. I state this not to brag but to
certify I know something about what is going on. Virtually the entire body of
environmental economics theory is built on top of the neoclassical economic
model, which assumes a capitalist system. Almost all environmentalists and
environmental economists are NOT LEFTIST. I am an exception.The
theory I teach is neoclassical, not Marxist. Understand I don't shun the
leftist label. I am proud of it. But to call environmentalists leftist because
you don't like their conclusions is inaccurate and lends little credibility
to your arguments.
@2bits"If the EPA want's new laws or regulations... they should
come to Congress and convince a majority of OUR representatives (not write their
own)."Congress gave them authority to write the regulations
(within certain limits, which is why the Supreme Court didn't allow
Congress giving the un-elected EPA the authority to write it's own laws and
regulations that apply to us... is a sweeeet deal.I wish Congress
would give ME (and the rest of the people) the authority to write our own
regulations. That would be sweeet. Never have to submit to a vote of the
people... and you get to do the job of Congress... SWEEET!Even if
the people don't like what you're doing... WHO CARES! You never have
to submit to a vote of the people.You are like a Czar (in Russia).
Never elected, but given authority by the rulers to write your own laws and do
whatever you think you need to do... And never have to answer to the people at
Re: ". . . to call environmentalists leftist because you don't like
their conclusions is inaccurate and lends little credibility to your
arguments."Not to attempt one-upmanship, but I also have a no
small insight into the issue, as an environmental lawyer. From long experience,
I can tell you that professed "environmentalists" are, to a man,
leftist. That they may fall along the continuum somewhere to the right of
someone that admits embracing marxist bases of their personal economics theory
is true, but real people easily recognize them as leftists.I
don't call environmentalists leftists because I don't like their
conclusions. I call them leftists because they are leftists. They espouse one or
another planned, centralized economy as their model of economics. One in which
decisions are made, not by the invisible hand, but by small group of elitist
overlords.Whether models dictate every behavioral element, or merely
a tax-spend scheme that torques markets in arbitrary, unnatural directions
amounts to quibbling over minutiae. It's still elitist, leftist thinking
that always has -- always will -- produce catastrophe for the real people that
are left completely out of the argument.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments