EPA's New Coal Pollution Rules: More Death, More Asthma

[theQuincunx5]

It certainly is a Constitutional issue, in this Constitutional republic.

Nope. There's no reason to take a global problem and figure it has to be devolved down to the states.

Your opinion on what is "common sense" may not be "common sense" to another - that is why policy is/should be made according to the processes of Constitutional law.

This is science. Doesn't care about the uneducated's "opinions" on what is good or bad.

 

[iluvatar5150]

My answer comes from a Constitutional standpoint.

No, it doesn't.

The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate these things,

Yes, it does.

Article 1 section 8 gives the legislature the ability to regulate interstate commerce, and article 3 section 2 gives the judicial branch authority to settle disputes between states.

and if we are to remain a republic, we should honor those laws.

The idea that federal regulation of pollution could somehow jeopardize our republic is ludicrous.

Whether or not the federal government should regulate this (requiring a Constitutional amendment) is another question. If those laws need to be updated, let's update them first which gives the federal government such powers, before coming back to this question.

The federal government already has those powers.

 

[ananda]

Nope. There's no reason to take a global problem and figure it has to be devolved down to the states.

This is science. Doesn't care about the uneducated's "opinions" on what is good or bad.

No, it isn't only about science - it's also about the needs and wants of individuals, each of which have an equal say in a Constitutional republic ... as opposed to communist regimes who do not care about the opinions of the "uneducated's".

 

[ananda]

Article 1 section 8 gives the legislature the ability to regulate interstate commerce, and article 3 section 2 gives the judicial branch authority to settle disputes between states.

Air pollution has nothing to do with commerce. Settling disputes between states does not equal dictating policy over states.

 

[hedrick]

Here's a discussion of the constitutional issues: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2984&context=faculty_publications. In sum, the Clean Air Act is actually a joint project of the EPA and the States. The EPA sets minimum standards. States get some money, and money can be withheld if they don't do it.

There is a history of this kind of thing, so the courts have established limits on how much the Federal Government can encourage states.

I haven't read details on the current plans, but I would guess that it doesn't change this fundamental picture, but rather than the EPA is relaxing or removing minimum standards.

From a practical point of view, air doesn't stop at state boundaries. It seems obvious that this is the kind of thing the Federal government was established to deal with.

 

[Goonie]

Here's a discussion of the constitutional issues: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2984&context=faculty_publications. In sum, the Clean Air Act is actually a joint project of the EPA and the States. The EPA sets minimum standards. States get some money, and money can be withheld if they don't do it.

There is a history of this kind of thing, so the courts have established limits on how much the Federal Government can encourage states.

I haven't read details on the current plans, but I would guess that it doesn't change this fundamental picture, but rather than the EPA is relaxing or removing minimum standards.

From a practical point of view, air doesn't stop at state boundaries. It seems obvious that this is the kind of thing the Federal government was established to deal with.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tives-call-for-constitutional-convention-alec
Not if the right succeed in rewriting the constitution.

 

[Andrew77]

When actions of one state can negatively impact another state (as they do with air pollution), it is absolutely right and proper (even by libertarian ideals) for the federal government to get involved and regulate things.

The fact that you give this a thumbs up suggests that 1.) you value some sort of philosophical ideal over the lives of actual people and 2.) that you don't even really understand the ideal that you're idolizing.

Yeah, and every dictator in world history, justified tyranny in the name of some unspecific injustice.

This simple fact suggests that 1. )you value some sort of tyrannical ideology over concrete facts and 2.) that you don't really understand the value of freedom that you claim to support, while undermining with every rationalization possible.

 

[Brightmoon]

Not necessarily. The federal gov't should treat all states equally, and not grant California special rights. This is what I'm taking from that article, that special rights for California are being revoked.

. California is doing the right thing for the right reason by enforcing stricter standards . The health of the entire planet is at stake here and it really isn’t about just California . New York and some other states have higher standards in place as well

 

[Brightmoon]

The air will still continue getting cleaner thanks to the efficiency upgrades just not as quickly as under the Obama plan.

. We cannot afford the speed up this will cause to global warming . We’re already almost on a runaway train to environmental disaster . Trumps people just ignore science.

 

[hedrick]

Nope. There's no reason to take a global problem and figure it has to be devolved down to the states.

In the US we're bound by the Constitution. The Federal Government has only specific powers. Personally this seems to involve interstate commerce as well as some other things justified that way. But people who passed the Clean Air Act thought that the EPA couldn't regulate directly, but had to work through the states. They set minimum standards, but states with specific problems such as California can have stronger standards.

Pollution does in fact cross boundaries, so national standards make sense. But there are also states with specific issues, so allowing stricter standards there also makes sense. The problem, in my view, isn't the involvement of the states, but the EPA backing off the minimum standards it sets.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

You have to admire the bold callousness of actually admitting up front that their actions will likely lead to up to 1400 premature deaths annually. In this mind set money trumps people every time. Yes, I said "trump".

Obama took economy from brink of disaster to steady record breaking five year climb. This was done while working to protect the children and the grandchildren from environmental damage.

To keep up with Obama Trump has done following:

-given huge trillion dollar deficit increasing tax cuts to richest Americans.

-taken away clean water protection.

-taken away clean air protection.

What is Trump plan when there remains nothing left to give away? This also demonstrates just how much of more effective leader Obama was than Trump.

 

[hedrick]

What is Trump plan when there remains nothing left to give away? This also demonstrates just how much of more effective leader Obama was than Trump.

There's always stuff a corrupt leader can do.

 

[evoeth]

Yeah, and every dictator in world history, justified tyranny in the name of some unspecific injustice.

This simple fact suggests that 1. )you value some sort of tyrannical ideology over concrete facts and 2.) that you don't really understand the value of freedom that you claim to support, while undermining with every rationalization possible.

Something tells me you don't know the "concrete facts."

Funny you used those words.

SOx pollution from coal burning in the midwest was a major problem in the 60s and 70s and 80s. It fell mostly in New England in the form of acid rain. A rain filled with sulfuric acid that, among other things, melts concrete.

There's the concrete facts that you are unaware of: 1) Real. 2) Cross border 3) Destroys things.

So you're wrong on all points. But carry on like you know what you're talking about.

 

[Andrew77]

Something tells me you don't know the "concrete facts."

Funny you used those words.

SOx pollution from coal burning in the midwest was a major problem in the 60s and 70s and 80s. It fell mostly in New England in the form of acid rain. A rain filled with sulfuric acid that, among other things, melts concrete.

There's the concrete facts that you are unaware of: 1) Real. 2) Cross border 3) Destroys thing

So you're wrong on all points. But carry on like you know what you're talking about.

Like I said, you would make great dictator. Take away the rights of the people, in the name of every possible rationalization.

And I'm not wrong on anything. In fact, you proved my entire post correct with the follow up post.

 

[evoeth]

Like I said, you would make great dictator. Take away the rights of the people, in the name of every possible rationalization.

And I'm not wrong on anything. In fact, you proved my entire post correct with the follow up post.

Dude. Let me spell this out for you:

Libertarians and far right conservatives have to P-R-E-T-E-N-D that market failures (like pollution) do not exist in order to justify their fantasy of 0 government. Pollution is real. Real people get hurt. Real people lose assets.

The EPA intervened. It worked. GET OVER IT.

 

[evoeth]

"every possible rationalization..."

Try real harm.

 

[Andrew77]

Dude. Let me spell this out for you:

Libertarians and far right conservatives have to P-R-E-T-E-N-D that market failures (like pollution) do not exist in order to justify their fantasy of 0 government. Pollution is real. Real people get hurt. Real people lose assets.

The EPA intervened. It worked. GET OVER IT.

Again.... you can say until the end of time, all of your reasons for denying rights to the people. That just makes you a dictator.

Seriously, how do you think Lenin and Stalin came to power? They found 'market failures' as you call them, and justified their taking all rights from the people.

Sure at the start it was to 'fix the problems', but as you gain more and more power, you take away more and more rights.

Same in Cuba with Castro. Same in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez. Same in Germany with Hitler.

Every single one, had a laundry list of reasons they had to take away power from the people. Some of those reasons had some legitimacy to them. There were real problems in every single one of those countries.

But the results were the same. Dictatorship, oppression, and devastation to all the people, whose rights were taken away, in the name of "Real people get hurt."

I've read the history of the EPA. Before they existed many states were creating contracts to deal with the pollution. In fact, nearly all of them were creating their own regulations that worked perfectly for their respective states. They were finding creative and inventive ways to deal with pollution that both provided perfectly good controls, while avoiding undue harm to the companies.

The EPA came in and wiped all that out, ruining good working systems.

I'll give you a perfect example from Germany. Instead of dropping blanket regulations that are neither good for business, nor all that good for the environment, they have done things like incorporated the rivers. So the river itself, is a company. That company, then charges fees based on the usage of the river, and/or is offset by reducing the pollution of the river.

The corporation oversees the testing of the water, and allows the companies flexibility to find the cheapest possible way to reduce pollution, or is willing to pay whatever fees are required so the river corporation can deal with the river.

We don't do that here. Why? Because of the mindless incompetence of the EPA. The EPA isn't interested in saving the environment, or saving the economy, so much as growing and expanding itself, which is why the EPA spend tons of money on research to justify more EPA rules. The EPA has actually directly funded new paper outlets that are favorable to the EPA.

If they spent half as much time doing what they are supposed to be doing, the Flint Mich water fiasco would have never happened. The EPA knew long in advance about the water issue, but didn't do anything about it. They didn't care about that, because they knew they could blame in on Republicans, and Republicans oppose the wasteful EPA.

Better to play politics, because after all, politics is what expands or harms the EPA. Not fixing the environment.

 

[theQuincunx5]

No, it isn't only about science - it's also about the needs and wants of individuals,

No, individuals "wants" in the absence of rational thought and full knowledge do NOT control in this case.

There are a lot of Americans who don't know the first foreign thing about global climate change, environmental science or coal. It is not up to them anymore than it is up to them to freely traffic in heroin.

each of which have an equal say in a Constitutional republic ... as opposed to communist regimes who do not care about the opinions of the "uneducated's".

Are you seriously of the opinion that there are no federal regulations? Really?

 

[super animator]

Libertarians and far right conservatives have to P-R-E-T-E-N-D that market failures (like pollution) do not exist in order to justify their fantasy of 0 government. .

I have only see one person here that advocates Anarcho-capitalism. Let be fair here and try not to resorts to generalizations.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Air pollution has nothing to do with commerce. Settling disputes between states does not equal dictating policy over states.

Air pollution in this context is a byproduct of a commercial activity. The removal and treatment of industrial waste is an example of commerce. The treatment of medical conditions resulting from contact with those waste products is also an example of commerce. Externalities such as pollution are also facets of commerce, and in order for markets to operate efficiently, the government often has to step in to mitigate them.

Yeah, and every dictator in world history, justified tyranny in the name of some unspecific injustice.

There’s nothing unspecified about the effects of these pollutants.

This simple fact suggests that 1. )you value some sort of tyrannical ideology over concrete facts and 2.) that you don't really understand the value of freedom that you claim to support, while undermining with every rationalization possible.

What concrete facts? Your paranoid libertarian fantasy that ignores the negative effects that pollution has on other people?

Whose freedom? The freedom of people to poison the air? Or the freedom of people to breathe clean air?

Your notion of freedom is ridiculous. What you propose is not freedom, but tyranny via capitalism.