This is a great one for some serious discussion by all the intelligent folks here. The EPA administrator announced that he was rescinding the Obama EPA's Clean Power Plan. This was with the rhetoric that the war on coal was over.
Leaving out politics (I'm trying to quit politics), lots of fodder for discussion.
Was the Clean Power Plan going to survive judicial review -- having quite a convoluted and fascinating procedural history in the courts? Has the Supreme Court really ruled that the EPA is required to address climate change and regulate CO2 emissions as the WaPo article claims? (I haven't checked but I'd be surprised if that is the case, because that question was not before the court afaik.) Is the Clean Power Plan the way we want to reduce CO2 emissions?
More generally, does this expose a weakness or problem with our current system of governance by administrative agency? Our governing system of environmental regulations has stood the test of time and many administrations after being put in place primarily during Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan administrations. These regulations by EPA followed specific mandates from Congress during the 70s and 80s in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act (CWA and FWPCA), Haz. waste/Superfund (CERCLA), Pesticides and Insecticides (FIFRA), Safe Drinking Water (SDWA), Oil Spills (OPA), and others.
If one administration's EPA can make law and another one take it away, does that point to a weakness? Obama's EPA used a statue enacted some 45 years earlier in 1970 (CAA) as a basis for EPA action on CO2. Do we need Congressional action with regard to CO2 emissions?
In general, looking back at the federal environmental laws that I've listed above, which are very detailed, specific, and well conceived (albeit complicated -- but the complication is excusable as they do so much in a complicated arena), I have to ask myself: How did these laws come to be? How did we once have a Congress that could do something?
________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Leaving out politics (I'm trying to quit politics), lots of fodder for discussion.
Was the Clean Power Plan going to survive judicial review -- having quite a convoluted and fascinating procedural history in the courts? Has the Supreme Court really ruled that the EPA is required to address climate change and regulate CO2 emissions as the WaPo article claims? (I haven't checked but I'd be surprised if that is the case, because that question was not before the court afaik.) Is the Clean Power Plan the way we want to reduce CO2 emissions?
More generally, does this expose a weakness or problem with our current system of governance by administrative agency? Our governing system of environmental regulations has stood the test of time and many administrations after being put in place primarily during Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan administrations. These regulations by EPA followed specific mandates from Congress during the 70s and 80s in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act (CWA and FWPCA), Haz. waste/Superfund (CERCLA), Pesticides and Insecticides (FIFRA), Safe Drinking Water (SDWA), Oil Spills (OPA), and others.
If one administration's EPA can make law and another one take it away, does that point to a weakness? Obama's EPA used a statue enacted some 45 years earlier in 1970 (CAA) as a basis for EPA action on CO2. Do we need Congressional action with regard to CO2 emissions?
In general, looking back at the federal environmental laws that I've listed above, which are very detailed, specific, and well conceived (albeit complicated -- but the complication is excusable as they do so much in a complicated arena), I have to ask myself: How did these laws come to be? How did we once have a Congress that could do something?
________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev