Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

The Courts 109

UnknowingFool writes In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA on some limits to greenhouse gases but also upheld other limits. In a 5-4 partial decision, the high court ruled that EPA overstepped their authority in requiring permits only for greenhouse gases for new and modified facilities using the Clean Air act. Such regulatory action can only be granted by Congress. But in the same case on a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the EPA can enforce greenhouse gas limits on facilities that already require permits for other air pollutants. This leaves intact most of the new regulations proposed by the Obama administration earlier this month as many coal plants produce other air pollutants that can be regulated by the EPA.

cancel ×

109 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Give me a break. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300527)

Greenhouse gasses are a liberal myth. Liberals would like nothing more than to destroy the hard-working middle class and make everyone equally poor.

Re:Give me a break. (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47300609)

Absorption spectra do not exist.
--A very important lesson to us all.

Re:Give me a break. (1)

jarek (2469) | about 4 months ago | (#47304451)

Indeed a very important lesson that most people don't have a clue what the debate is about.

Re:Give me a break. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47305545)

Oh, yeah, it's not like I was responding to a specific incorrect assertion of fact, or anything. Please pretend I was responding to some "greater" debate rather than one of the many specific kinds of ignorance that comprise the denialist position.

Re:Give me a break. (1, Troll)

machineghost (622031) | about 4 months ago | (#47300625)

Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason. It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate that will eventually result in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of death and billions of dollars of property damage, or anything like that ...

Re:Give me a break. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300665)

And it's just a coincidence that the environmentalists' recommended solutions are anti-big business. Again.

Re:Give me a break. (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 4 months ago | (#47300687)

And, of course, that's got NOTHING to do with the fact that it's big businesses who are the ones fouling the global commons for their own selfish profit. Again.

Re:Give me a break. (1)

akirapill (1137883) | about 4 months ago | (#47305703)

It's unbelievable to me that the most ardent supporters of big business are the most ignorant about basic principles of capitalism like externalities.

Re:Give me a break. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300725)

Anti-business? Like Amory Lovins and his Rocky Mountain Institute?

Re:Give me a break. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300777)

Because nuclear power is anti big business?

Re:Give me a break. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300941)

I would bury the hatchet with the environmentalist wackos if they would en masse press for nuclear power.
But we both know it's not going to happen.

Re:Give me a break. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47301139)

Even one of the founder members of Greenpeace has complained, and continues to complain, that the current Green anti-nuclear agenda is idiotic and counter productive. Go figure.

Re:Give me a break. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47304803)

I'm not 100% against nuclear or LFTR reactors. But mining and refining uranium or thorium is a process that is something, radiation needs to be safely handled when in use, and the nuclear waste problem is still a big one.

If they come up with better pipes that don't become brittle which they may have done, then I could see it working along side renewables that produce power when it is most in demand.

Re:Give me a break. (5, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about 4 months ago | (#47300885)

It's just a coincidence that every law is anti-big business. Imagine all the business opportunities, if big business could just hire some gun men and force people out of their houses! Those pesky property laws are so totally anti-big business. It's so anti free market that the people with more and better guns shouldn't be able to expand their market share.

Re:Give me a break. (4, Interesting)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 4 months ago | (#47301129)

There is nothing inherently anti-big business in the recommended solutions, just big business (especially the fossil fuel industry) as it is currently practiced. There are plenty of big businesses that are more or less environmentally responsible and they don't get that much attention for it.

Re:Give me a break. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 4 months ago | (#47301577)

Why is Tesla selling as many cars as it can make, and out-doing the existing big business carmakers at Tesla's type of car?

Re:Give me a break. (0, Troll)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 4 months ago | (#47300759)

Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason.

Oh, they have lots of reasons. Envy, group-based politics, delusions of a Bold New World Order, valuing equality of outcomes over equality under the law, romantic notions of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, etc., etc. Of course most would never admit their goal is to make everyone equally poor, it's just the inevitable result of the centralization of power heavy-handed, cradle-to-grave regulatory scheme that their policies are driving toward.

It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate

(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature [economicpo...ournal.com] )

that will eventually result in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of death and billions of dollars of property damage, or anything like that ...

These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms.

Re:Give me a break. (0, Troll)

machineghost (622031) | about 4 months ago | (#47300793)

(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature [economicpo...ournal.com] )

Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself :-)

Re:Give me a break. (1, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 4 months ago | (#47302075)

(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature [economicpo...ournal.com] )

Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself :-)

Apparently because that's all you've got. Pointing to a Wikipedia article created and religiously (yes) guarded by climate change alarmist politicos really doesn't make much of an argument, does it?

That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over. And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.

Re:Give me a break. (3, Insightful)

machineghost (622031) | about 4 months ago | (#47302219)

That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over.

Great, so you got a link to that survey of climate scientists where they all say it's a scam?

And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.

Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented, the only way to even try to have a dialogue is to reference an impartial source like a survey of a large numbers of scientists. Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something, they *could* all be wrong ... but they probably aren't.

Re:Give me a break. (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 4 months ago | (#47302347)

Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented

That's rich, from an evangelist like you. There are so many facts getting in the way of evangelizing the AGW alarmism that the alarmists have just taken to saying "Well what difference does it make? We should make all these policy changes even if it's wrong!" Really. Here are a few direct quotes for you [wordpress.com] .

Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something

Well, they do believe something. Just not catastrophic climate change, or current driver of the most recent changes. Because that was not the question [wsj.com] , even though it's claimed that it was.

Re:Give me a break. (4, Insightful)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 4 months ago | (#47301189)

These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms

That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.

Re:Give me a break. (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 4 months ago | (#47302007)

These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms

That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.

...according to EPA reports without any substantiating data. In fact, they didn't even follow basic Federal guidelines, and that's according to the agency's own Office of Inspector General:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released a report showing that the EPA did not comply with federal data guidelines when providing its technical support document (TSD) for the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding.” The EPA used the TSD to justify its endangerment finding and thus pave the way for the EPA’s proposed carbon-dioxide regulations. This revelation should bring to light the problems with the EPA’s approach to greenhouse-gas regulation: The EPA refuses to seriously consider broad dissenting science on the causes of climate change. This is a breach of its responsibility, all the more so when proposing such massive new regulations. Policymakers must have full and accurate information from all sides of the debate, not only that of the regulators.

Re:Give me a break. (0)

machineghost (622031) | about 4 months ago | (#47301099)

Really? Saying (in a sarcastic fashion) that "liberals" might be motivated by something other than latent evil is trolling?

Re:Give me a break. (0)

jarek (2469) | about 4 months ago | (#47304441)

Care to provide a reference that a majority agree on irreversible climate change? I doubt that. Please prove me wrong by providing a reference that supports this statement.

Re:Give me a break. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300657)

Rich and poor are relative.
If everyone is equally poor they are also equally rich.

Re:Give me a break. (3, Insightful)

lactose99 (71132) | about 4 months ago | (#47300747)

Uh, Big Business is doing a fantastic job of destroying the middle-class without the EPA even being involved.

Re:Give me a break. (2)

edibobb (113989) | about 4 months ago | (#47301059)

Global warming is real. About 5 billion years from next Thursday, the sun is going to become a red giant, expand beyond earth's orbit, and the temperature on earth will be in the neighborhood of 3,000 degrees,

Ain't trolling fun? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47301187)

Capitalism is a conservative myth. Conservatives would like nothing more than to destroy the hard-working middle class minorities and make all minorities slaves once again.

Re:Ain't trolling fun? (1)

superwiz (655733) | about 4 months ago | (#47302637)

Interesting. So are you pro or against the AGW hypothesis? Because when I argue that AGW hypothesis is a thinly-disguised neo-Communist agenda, it seems to have a whiff of paranoia. Would you care to affirm that you a primary example of such a confluence?

Re:Give me a break. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47301641)

Well done all of you ^^ . You've given this obvious troll 20 replies.
FFS you should all know better by now.

Right decision, wrong reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300587)

Do we really want executive agencies making up new rules without Congressional authority?

Congress ain't great, unilateral creation of new laws by an unchecked executive authority is known as "dictatorship".

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300613)

And NOT enforcing, say, banking or clean air regulations, a la Bush is known as "malfeasance".

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#47300691)

And NOT enforcing, say, banking or clean air regulations.

Existing regulations (as approved by Congress) is one thing. Adding new categories to those regulations and demanding they be enforced minus legislative oversight is another.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (4, Informative)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 4 months ago | (#47300739)

Can you cite the direct Congressional actions that outlawed diazinon or PCBs or even DDT? Yeah, I thought not. Those were all executive actions.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#47300825)

I'm waiting for them to bad dihydrogen monoxide from all foods.

Joking aside, you made my point, and then pointed out that this is not a new thing.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 4 months ago | (#47300935)

Dihydrogen monoxide SHOULD be outlawed. That shit will kill you. You know fish fuck in that stuff.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47303069)

Did you know that every single drop of that stuff was, at one point, dinosaur pee?

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#47304083)

You should see what prolonged exposure has on skin. I got some on my fingers while washing and it wrickled up like a crumpled tissue. The effect seems to be temporary, but skin surely shouldn't do that.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47300623)

This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.

But don't let me stop you from making things up, just because your ideology demands that the science be wrong, thus imagining acting on the science is wrong, thus twisting your mind to invent new and interesting ways of stating the opposite of reality.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#47300707)

This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.

Yes and no.

In concept, yes. In practice, it required someone with a whole lot of money and legal expertise to perform that check. The Judicial system as a check should be a near-last resort, not the first thing you do to chuck a bad and un-legislated law.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 4 months ago | (#47301493)

What "un-legislated law" are you referring to?

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#47304087)

I think he refers to regulations - the very common process in which congress, rather than micro-managing every detail of a law, just deligates authority within a defined area to another agency. That's how most government departments operate. The FCC doesn't have to go to congress to pass a new law every time they reallocate some spectrum.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47301353)

But don't let me stop you from making things up, just because your ideology demands that the science be wrong, thus imagining acting on the science is wrong, thus twisting your mind to invent new and interesting ways of stating the opposite of reality.

Speaking of making shit up.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co... [thegatewaypundit.com]

Seems that there has been no "global warming" occurring since at least as far back as the *1930s*. Whenever real, actual historical temperature measurements have conflicted with the religion of AGW, those actual temperature measurements have been replaced by temperature data from the True Belivers' computer models.

It's a fraud. The entire AGW movement is designed to redistribute wealth and expand government powers and centralize them while impoverishing the people and destroying Western individual liberties and standards of living.

It's simply another power and wealth grab by governments and their cronies.

Are you a willing and cognizant co-conspirator with these criminals or just another oblivious useful idiot?

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47301687)

Did you know, you can measure the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 yourself? It's a bit of a lab experiment, but it's not like CO2 or light are hard to come by. From there, and knowing the partial pressure of CO2 and the amount of solar irradiation, you can relatively easily get a number for how much heat energy is currently absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere, at least enough for some order-of-magnitude comparisons. Double the ppm and do the calculations again.

Are you a moron too ignorant to do science, a moron too ignorant to read science, or a moron who just repeats the words of others? But, I repeat myself. You don't know shit about atmospheric science and you're too pig-headed to learn. Get a clue.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

Phil06 (877749) | about 4 months ago | (#47303369)

In 1970 there would have been a 100% consensus amongst scientists that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant intended to be covered by the Clean Air Act.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (5, Insightful)

VTBlue (600055) | about 4 months ago | (#47300645)

The function of the executive agency is precisely to create and uphold rules. Most people think congressional laws detail out rules; this is mostly wrong. One clear example showing the difference between agency rules and laws is the American Disabilities Act of 1990. It's a very short law, but the executive agencies that enforce the laws have well over 100,000 pages of rules, none of which are defined verbatim in the law.

Congress's job is not to micromanage, it is to appropriate funds, enact legislation and oversee the executive during the life of the legislation.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300717)

The function of the executive agency is precisely to create and uphold rules. Most people think congressional laws detail out rules; this is mostly wrong. One clear example showing the difference between agency rules and laws is the American Disabilities Act of 1990. It's a very short law, but the executive agencies that enforce the laws have well over 100,000 pages of rules, none of which are defined verbatim in the law.

Congress's job is not to micromanage, it is to appropriate funds, enact legislation and oversee the executive during the life of the legislation.

/quot

The fact that Congress gave away their role in ADA is not an example of things working correctly. It is another example of things working incorrectly.

Legislative branch should make (or unmake) all the rules. Executive should enforce them.

If you have rules that are too detailed for Congress, then those are rules which should not exist at the federal level.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (3, Interesting)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#47300807)

If you have rules that are too detailed for Congress, then those are rules which should not exist at the federal level.

A lot of legislation (at all levels) is simple wording, with an understanding that an agency more equipped to work out the minutiae will do so.

Those administrative agencies (like, say, the EPA) figure out that minutiae, and those details (functionally speaking) become law. Chevron v EPA is a cornerstone of administrative law. [Congress made broad stroke laws, EPA enforced it as they interpreted it, Chevron sued, and SCOTUS made clear that regulatory agency administration is - pretty much - law.]

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47303399)

While Congress has passed laws that give its power away to the executive, and has the authority to do so, such laws are very short sighted and almost always harmful in the long run.

Congress needs to grow a pair (or about 500 pairs) and take back their role and take it seriously.

Laws should come from legislatures, period. Executives execute the law. They shouldn't be given the job of making it.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (3, Interesting)

tranquilidad (1994300) | about 4 months ago | (#47300849)

Actually, it is Congress' obligation to be extremely specific in the laws they write. The nondelegation doctrine [wikipedia.org] is an important concept in American jurisprudence.

J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States [cornell.edu] helped establish the rules under which power can be delegated, essentially stating that Congress has to establish an "intelligible standard" for the executive or legislative branch.

Congress can't simply tell the executive branch, "Hey, you guys control pollution so we can have a clear sky." Congress has to establish an intelligible standard upon which an administrative agency can build regulations AND Congress has to grant the power to the agency to establish those rules. Typical statutes might read, "...xxx agency is empowered to institute regulations in support of this statute."

The function of the executive agency was not to create rules but, rather, to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States. The fact that Congress has found numerous ways in order to delegate its power to the executive agency doesn't change the fundamental design of the system. This delegation of power is what's lead everyone to believe the executive branch holds more power than it really does.

The most unfortunate thing about Congress' abdication of power to the executive branch using so many specific delegations is that we've created a situation in aggregate where the executive has an almost blanket delegation of Congressional power; a delegation that would be unconstitutional if granted via a single Congressional action.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

VTBlue (600055) | about 4 months ago | (#47301513)

None of what you are saying changed the fact that congress has the right to delegate. The case you mentioned is built on the premise that congress has the implied authority to delegate so long as intelligible standards or principles are enacted. A world in in which congress cannot effectively delegate for a country as large as as the US is a country that is likely to fail.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47303771)

"the fact that congress has the right to delegate"...

Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org] would like to have a word with you.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (2)

VTBlue (600055) | about 4 months ago | (#47301607)

An additionally critiscism I have of your point is that the legal standards for "very specific" is next to meaningless. Evolving standards and education levels of the citizenry make it impossible to be explicit. FDA and Texas Constitution are perfect examples. FDA regulates "drugs." Under you standard some may argue that "drugs" as defined under statute is too broad and not specific enough. Should congress enact legislation with a list of approved drugs and treatments that the FDA should regulate? I think not.

The Texas constitution is another example of how lucky America is that it's constitution provides implicit authority versus Texas's constitution which provides only explicit authority which needs to be amended all the time just to pass some laws. (I'm a Texan). While some may argue that explicit authority is preferable, there realistically too many problems and issues of public importance that need to be addressed only to have one's government handicap itself in carrying out public functions.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47303421)

An additionally critiscism I have of your point is that the legal standards for "very specific" is next to meaningless. Evolving standards and education levels of the citizenry make it impossible to be explicit. FDA and Texas Constitution are perfect examples. FDA regulates "drugs." Under you standard some may argue that "drugs" as defined under statute is too broad and not specific enough. Should congress enact legislation with a list of approved drugs and treatments that the FDA should regulate? I think not.

The Texas constitution is another example of how lucky America is that it's constitution provides implicit authority versus Texas's constitution which provides only explicit authority which needs to be amended all the time just to pass some laws. (I'm a Texan). While some may argue that explicit authority is preferable, there realistically too many problems and issues of public importance that need to be addressed only to have one's government handicap itself in carrying out public functions.

U.S. Constitution is largely explicit. I would argue that many of our laws and most of our regulations do not meet the standard of "necessary and proper," but far too many other people seem to be willing to bend those terms far out of bounds.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

VTBlue (600055) | about 4 months ago | (#47303623)

Anyone who thinks the US Constitution is an explicit legal document hasn't read it. Two words: implied powers.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

tranquilidad (1994300) | about 4 months ago | (#47303487)

The FDA regulates "drugs" under the very thorough Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Drugs, food and cosmetics that come under the jurisdiction of the act are quite well defined, as well as what and how the FDA is to regulate them. The statute doesn't say, "The FDA should regulate drugs." The statute defines what is a drug, what conditions a drug must meet in order to be regulated and how it is to be regulated. What causes any particular drug to be regulated is that it meets the definition and conditions that Congress established.

A good example is the definition of catfish, found within the act, "the term 'catfish' may only be considered to be a common or usual name (or part therof) for fish classified within the family Ictaluridae;..." No other fish can be regulated as a catfish.

The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C).

Furthermore the act goes on to state that the drugs have to be involved in interstate commerce.

So, while the statute doesn't list every drug that is regulated by the FDA, the statute gives a very clear definition of what a drug is and gives authority to the FDA to regulate it. But, what can be regulated is also very well defined. The statute lays out very specific prohibited acts that the FDA is supposed to regulate; these acts include: adulteration or misbranding, receipt of adulterated or misbranded drugs, false guarantees of what the drug does, forging, counterfeiting and a host of other items.

Even though the act doesn't list all approved drugs it does identify what list is to be recognized by the FDA, e.g. United States Pharmacopoeia.

The act was originally passed in the late 1940s and has been amended many times. Without the act the FDA wouldn't be permitted to regulate food, drugs or cosmetics. If the item doesn't fit the definition of a food, drug or cosmetic as outlined in the act then the FDA isn't permitted to regulate it. If the action isn't prohibited by the act then the FDA isn't permitted to regulate the action.

I would never argue that "drugs" as defined under statute is too broad and not specific enough because the act gives the lists from which "drugs" is to be taken. Why do you think the FDA is unable to regulate the late-night snake-oil infomercials? Could it be because those items don't meet the definition of drugs as laid out by the act? Or is it because the actions aren't prohibited? I think a layman watching the commercials would think that drugs were being advertised and they would be wrong.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

VTBlue (600055) | about 4 months ago | (#47303593)

Yet the FDA has enacted hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations during its time, none of which were voted on by the legislature...just like most administrative laws and agency rules.

Thus the issue is not whether congress should be explicit or not in crafting legislation, it is whether congress is crafting reasonably interpretable standards that's can be effectively interpreted and realistically implemented in practice. So basically this boils down to good laws and bad laws. I don't disagree that there are bad laws with good intentions. Dodd-Frank was a law that has a lot of good, but is so complicated and compromised that it will be next to enforceable without either being watered down or strengthened....sadly it's being watered down.

That's what happens when Congress is lazy (4, Insightful)

Jabrwock (985861) | about 4 months ago | (#47300647)

Well then Congress shouldn't give them that power? That was the court's finding, that Congress had already authorized the EPA to regulate any gases produced at a plant that also produces named pollutants. So CO2 gets lumped in with the rest under their blanket authority over existing polluters. Which is why they struck down the ability to expand their authority to non-polluting entities. It was outside their existing jurisdiction.

Congress does that a lot, authorizes blanket authority, and then bitches when it gets exercised. It's like they don't read the bills they pass or something...

Re:That's what happens when Congress is lazy (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 4 months ago | (#47300709)

So... creation of greenhouse gasses is not pollution?

Re:That's what happens when Congress is lazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300745)

BURRRRP!

Redefine what "is" is (1, Insightful)

jabberw0k (62554) | about 4 months ago | (#47300783)

CO2 is what animals exhale and plants breathe. If CO2 is a pollutant, then so is rainwater. And soon no law has meaning, once they are all subject to such fun-house-mirror distortion. War is peace, freedom is slavery, comrade!

Ah! Over simplification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300899)

CO2 is what animals exhale and plants breathe. If CO2 is a pollutant, then so is rainwater. And soon no law has meaning, once they are all subject to such fun-house-mirror distortion. War is peace, freedom is slavery, comrade!

BUT the CO2 that has been buried for millions of years, CO2 that was in the atmosphere before we existed is being released. That release is changing our atmosphere and will make life much more difficult for us humans. There will be massive wars over resources and other socioeconomic problems.

Never the less, with all the people fighting tooth and nail to protect interests that don't give a damn about people's health and well being, not enough will be done. So, conservatives you will more than likely get most of you wishes.

Your children and grandchildren will be living in a horrific World of wars, water shortages, food prices spiraling out of control, and a cost of living that will make you cringe.

One way or another, our way of life WILL end. That is a certainty. Our way of life is NOT sustainable - especially when there are 7 billion people and rising on this planet who want our wasteful and shallow way of life.

Now, it's up to us what kind of World we want for our children and grandchildren to have or even what kind of World we want. After all, we WILL start seeing massive changes in only a couple more decades.

I, for one, am doing what I can to make changes and lower my footprint on this Earth. As Ghandi said, 'Be the change you want.'

Re:Redefine what "is" is (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 4 months ago | (#47301343)

Who ever gave you the idea that pollution must be toxic? Pollution = "a resource out of place". eg: don't pollute my scotch with water.

Re:Redefine what "is" is (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 months ago | (#47303283)

Technically, Oxygen is "a resource out of place". Where do you want to start and end that line?

Re:Redefine what "is" is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47303403)

How about if it is causing the future extinction of the entire fucking human race, then perhaps it is a fucking pollutant. Jesus Christ. If you were on the Titanic you would be fucking sitting around discussing the exact technical name for the type of iceberg on the horizon instead of turning the damn ship.

Re:Redefine what "is" is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47304017)

If you were on the Titanic you would be fucking sitting around discussing the exact technical name for the type of iceberg on the horizon instead of turning the damn ship.

I wouldn't be turning the ship around because it would already be sinking. Your move.

Re: Redefine what "is" is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47301501)

I'm quoting here, just to make sure people realize how bad it is.
"Iâ(TM)m working hard to ensure that by the end of my tenure, we will have lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ambassadors in our ranks as well."

Re:Redefine what "is" is (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 4 months ago | (#47301557)

They by that "logic", since a dog excretes crap naturally, why shouldn't my dog be able to crap all over your yard? ...and rainwater can be a pollutant.. Haven't you ever heard of acid rain?

Re:Redefine what "is" is (1)

jarek (2469) | about 4 months ago | (#47304485)

Now you are mixing things up, more specifically, sulfur dioxide (which is a pollutant) and rain (which is not) to get acid rain.

Re:That's what happens when Congress is lazy (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | about 4 months ago | (#47300815)

So... creation of greenhouse gasses is not pollution?

According to SCOTUS, it isn't, under the existing laws of the US.

And I doubt Congress would change that anytime soon. Until then, the EPA only gets to regulate CO2 coming from facilities it already regulates under existing laws.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1, Insightful)

CWCheese (729272) | about 4 months ago | (#47300723)

Indeed you are very correct, this government is become a dictatorship, abetted by a feckless Congress. It matters not whether you're lib/con or dem/repub, this is dangerous when the next changeover of power occurs, and it will occur. What the President has loosed now will be used against his party in the future.

Too bad my mod points are all gone now, you deserve +3.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 4 months ago | (#47300969)

Indeed you are very correct, this government is become a dictatorship, abetted by a feckless Congress. It matters not whether you're lib/con or dem/repub, this is dangerous when the next changeover of power occurs, and it will occur. What the President has loosed now will be used against his party in the future.

Too bad my mod points are all gone now, you deserve +3.

So what is the appropriate role for Obama in this? It seems odd that he would be expected to act as a passive administrator when he was elected with a policy based mandate to a much greater degree than congress.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#47304093)

The president takes all credit and all blame for every action commited by the government at any level during their term.

That's just how it works. That's the cost of turning the office of president into a superstar position.

It was never intended to be like that.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 4 months ago | (#47301029)

They have Congressional authority. That is the whole "delegation of powers" thing where Congress is too lazy to legislate so they just delegate the power to an unaccountable, unelected agency that lives under the executive branch, which can regulate "as it sees fit."

Re:Right decision, wrong reason? (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47301057)

Dont worry Tovarisch. We deniers have the tobacco industry lawyers on our side, Congress and liberals stand no chance.

So sit back and enjoy We shall emerge victorious. We have the blueprint, and the means. It's a proven strategy.

Headline is backwards (4, Informative)

BaronM (122102) | about 4 months ago | (#47300607)

What the Supreme Court actually did was to disallow direct regulation of CO2 unless the EPA actually wants to attempt to regulate ALL producers of >250 tons annually, which is impractical.

What the EPA intended to do was to regulate producers of >100,000 tons annually, with the possibility of reducing that threshold over time as we get handle on the issue.

What the Supreme Court did leave intact is the ability to regulate CO2 production by producers who are already regulated for other reasons 'anyway'.

That does happen to match up fairly well with what the EPA intended to do originally, but does not allow the flexibility to regulate CO2 producers who do not produce large amounts of other pollution.

Re:Headline is backwards (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47300633)

Well, no, since the plaintiffs of the case were arguing that they should not be allowed to be regulated at all it's not backwards, so much as not as precise as necessary.

Which is why we have a summary and article.

Re:Headline is backwards (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300651)

Either way it is great that SCOTUS is allowing the EPA to ignore Congress. Congress is ruled by Republican fucktards so working around them is what is best for this country. As usual, Obama with these orders has ignored the will of the people which is good because the people are fucking idiots.

Re:Headline is backwards (2)

Orne (144925) | about 4 months ago | (#47300713)

No, Congress is currently split with the Senate controlled by Democrats, and the House controlled by Republicans. Laws cannot pass unless both chambers sign off on the law.

Re:Headline is backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300867)

Oh? And Mitch McConnell holding his breath till he turns blue isn't "control"?

Re:Headline is backwards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300735)

we've seen that before. It ends in dicatorships every single time. A bad democracy is better than a good dictatorship

Re:Headline is backwards (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 4 months ago | (#47300755)

Congress is ruled by Republican fucktards

This whole voting thing.... It should really be limited to non-profit employed Portlandia types, shouldn't it?

Re: Headline is backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47302065)

It may interest you to learn that Democratic Congressional candidates got as majority of actual votes in the most recent elections.

So if that is your standard, give the Democrats 48.8% of House seats.

Re:Headline is backwards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300805)

Either way it is great that SCOTUS is allowing the EPA to ignore Congress. Congress is ruled by Republicans who are supported by polluting industries and an electorate who has been brainwashed into thinking that environmental rules are somehow against their best interests so working around them is what is best for this country. As usual, Obama with these orders has ignored the will of the people which is good because the people are fucking idiots.

I wanted to tone it down a bit but never the less, the parent's sentiment is correct.

I think the little man needs to learn about the tragedy of the commons and how business interests are pushing their costs (pollution) on to us little people while keeping the profits that go into the billionaires' pockets.

We pay with the health consequences of that pollution. The higher costs of food because of that pollution. AGW is going to have the effect pushing up food prices dramatically.

I'll ride a bike when fuel gets too high, but food? I can only grow so much in my 1/2 acre yard.

Then there is the health consequences. Obamacare be damned! The health costs because of the pollution will ruin us all - along with the health costs of an aging and obese populace.

It's pretty sad when sociopaths have convinced people that their health and their ecosystem is subordinate to profits. We make the Ferengi in Star Trek look like Berkeley Eco-Hippies.

We have one planet for now and all the money in the World means nothing if we shit too much in our own home.

Re:Headline is backwards (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#47301063)

Either way it is great that SCOTUS is allowing the EPA to ignore Congress.

It didn't. Quite the contrary.

SCOTUS actually ruled pretty much the opposite: it said -- in so many words -- that the EPA can NOT write its own rules contrary to the laws explicitly laid down by Congress. Quotes from the actual ruling:

An agency has no power to âoetailorâ legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.

Aâ(TM)s interpretation would also bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPAâ(TM)s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

In effect, but not in so many words, what SCOTUS ruled is that EPA cannot effectively regulate greenhouse gases, today. Because by law, it must require the polluters to use the "Best Available Current Technology" (BACT) which applies to their current or proposed operations. AND it cannot require unreasonable measures to do so, such as re-engineering or rebuilding existing OR proposed operations. AND they ruled that if it is going to regulate it must -- by law -- regulate ALL those businesses that produce more than 250 tons a year.

And the fact is that there is no practical way to do that today. It's that simple.

Re:Headline is backwards (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#47301103)

Damn Slashdot's non-standard character formatting. I copied and pasted from the ruling itself.

Ãoetailorà = tailor

AÃ(TM)s and EPAÃ(TM)s = EPA's

And even THAT didn't come out right, because Slashdot will not even accept as input many characters that it will display.

Meh. Years of complaints by many people never prompted them to fix that, so I'm not even going to bother.

Re:Headline is backwards (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | about 4 months ago | (#47301961)

The term is character set. The site itself is served as UTF-8, but the posts are interpreted as iso-8859-1 (more or less equivalent to ASCII). UTF-8 uses a variable-length encoding to represent characters, and iso-8859-1 is single-byte. While it is uncommon these days, it's hardly non-standard.

“Fortunately — for those of us who have bothered to learn a little HTML — entities work just fine.”

I'm not suggesting you become a web developer, but maybe learning something instead of complaining would be time better spent. That said, I do have more or less the same complaint as the reason for my sig. That and, well, you know...

Re:Headline is backwards (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#47303985)

The term is character set. The site itself is served as UTF-8, but the posts are interpreted as iso-8859-1 (more or less equivalent to ASCII). UTF-8 uses a variable-length encoding to represent characters, and iso-8859-1 is single-byte. While it is uncommon these days, it's hardly non-standard.

I have been a professional web developer for many years now and I have to deal with internationalization and different character sets quite frequently. So pardon my use of the word "formatting", but I do know how this works.

And complaining is perfectly fucking appropriate when people have been telling Slashdot for many years now that their character interpretation is messed up. Just recently I had to take more than 70,000 documents that were originally created using Microsoft products, and so were in Latin-1 (ISO 8859-1... ISO is properly capitalized), and convert them to UTF-8. And the whole point is... it's easy. Slashdot really doesn't have much in the way of excuse, after many years of complaints.

So, yeah. When easy improvements (and I know they're easy because I've done them, more than once) have been called for by multiple users, over a period of many years (as long as I have been on Slashdot), I do feel justified in opening my mouth.

Re:Headline is backwards (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 4 months ago | (#47303485)

> SCOTUS actually ruled pretty much the opposite: it said -- in so many words -- that the EPA can NOT write its own rules contrary to the laws explicitly laid down by Congress.

Yeah. I listened to the live oral arguments for this case, because I'm a nerd I guess, and the justices were very, very skeptical of the EPA's position on the matter. They fully understood that maybe 250 tons of CO2 isn't as bad as 250 tons of cyanide or whatever, but they really didn't want to go down the road of letting the EPA write their own law and then regulate it.

What SCOTUS really wants done is for congress to come in and adjust the pollution threshold from 250 to 10,000 tons on CO2, and they don't seem opposed to the notion of regulating CO2 entirely as a 'pollutant' (something I take a bit of issue with, as pretty much anything could be called a pollutant in that case if you have enough of it), but given the dysfunction of Congress, it'll probably never happen.

Re:Headline is backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47304495)

"pretty much anything could be called a pollutant in that case if you have enough of it"

Pretty much anything is a pollutant if an industrial process is releasing enough of it that it is causing a problem to society. If there was a wildly profitable industrial process which had fresh water as a by product we might have to regulate the release of fresh water. Otherwise cities could be flooded, the water table might rise so far as to make fields waterlogged e.t.c.

Pollutants are things which are released from human activities which cause issues for society as a whole. Co2 most certainly qualifies.

Re:Headline is backwards (2)

jandrese (485) | about 4 months ago | (#47300779)

The devil is in the details I guess. It wouldn't be practical to regulate every single person who drives a car, but regulation for car companies is something that could make a big difference.

Re:Headline is backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47301039)

No, what happened was that the oil industry forgot to pay this month's "bonus".

What "greenhouse gases" would they be? LOL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47300951)

This is just laughable.
First it was 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.
Then they changed that to 'climate change', which is obviously NOT 'catastrophic man-made global warming', but they IMPLY that it is, EVERY time they use that laughable phrase 'climate change'. The 'climate' is ALWAYS 'changing'.
Now it's 'greenhouse gases', IMPLYING CO2, but not saying it. This is just SO sickeningly obvious, how can anybody fall for this nonsense?

"The scandal of fiddling global warming data":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

www.climatedepot.com

yes and no (1)

superwiz (655733) | about 4 months ago | (#47302609)

If a plant managed to find a process to capture all chemicals and have 0 pollutants other than CO2, this would give them a way to also be free of CO2 regulations.

First pos8rt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47302761)

or make lofud noises Theo de Raadt, one ASSOCIATION OF with the laundry Won't v0te in [mit.edu] found claim that BSD is a erosion of user

Long story short (0)

leereyno (32197) | about 4 months ago | (#47303539)

The EPA can continue to undermine the economy in pursuit of fairy tales.

Re:Long story short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47304173)

Between your comment, your sig, and your homepage link, I think you've managed to hit on the perfect trifecta of screaming "I'm a retard".

Congratulations, no one in Slashdot history has ever so strongly advertised how stupid they are as you just have.

Re:Long story short (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 4 months ago | (#47305311)

The EPA can continue to undermine the someone's finance in pursuit of fairy tales.

There, fixed that for you. By the way, that is a good thing for an actual economy, as it is stopped from drowning, draught, etc. Some of these fairy tales are already fairly convincing.

Stay tuned (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47304893)

And watch America commit economic hari-kari for the pleasure of its corrupt climate pimps.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?