Good news.
But the courts need to do more to bring this rogue agency under control.
If you pee your pants at the mere mention of the word "coal", you've unwittingly placed your crotch under the authority and regulation of the EPA. Your crotch is now considered a "wetland". Serves you right.
That snark aside, however, I'm open to a compromise solution whereby states can regulate non-carbon air pollution within its own borders. But the moment non-carbon air pollution crosses a state line, then I believe that the EPA has every right to step in.
No development allowed!
So, the EPA now has to consider costs.
I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?
So, the EPA now has to consider costs.
I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?
We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.
I would like that, but the EPA is a good start!So, the EPA now has to consider costs.
I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?
We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.
Oh my, BO peep's roll-out comes to an end, huh? And on one of his really special issues.Scalia says.....No. You don't just deem fit what you think you can.
The majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the EPA has to consider the costs of complying with the rules and sent the air pollution regulations back to the agency. "EPA must consider cost — including cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost," Scalia wrote in agreeing with the industry.
The decision will have repercussions for other EPA regulations that are key to Obama's climate change agenda. The EPA will now have to examine the cost of compliance for the Clean Power Plan, which is at the heart of the president's environmental agenda.
The EPA had argued that the rules are both appropriate and necessary regardless of the costs, and that it has the discretion under the law to act as it deems fit in regulating hazardous pollutants.....snip~
Supreme Court rules against EPA on pollution rules | WashingtonExaminer.com
What we really need is someone with the political balls to end the EPA as we know it today, and replace the organization with something that has more accountability to Congress and cannot at their own discretion come up with regulation policy. An advocacy group I do not mind, but how the EPA operates today is damn near Gestapo like all with their own militarized police force.
Funny, your President wasn't.
Now, Corporations aren't being forced into a " compromise " that winds up hurting the Middle class.
Thanks to this ruling , Middle class Americans won't be forced to fund the Progressive scam that is Global warming through higher cost on energy, products and services.
We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.
It seems fairly broad to me,I noticed that the Supreme Court didn't consider the cost of all the regulations they must comply to in the ruling. I think if they are really going to go with the cost angle they have to consider the cost of all regulations.
Indeed it does. But whom? Certainly not from the establishment GOP.
If SCOTUS is requiring the EPA to make a cost benefit analysis of their regulations, I suspect that they'll skew the numbers / results to only further justify what they've made their ideological minds up on already. It's kinda like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house, don't you think? I mean just the way the admin cooked the ObamaCare numbers, right? A track record of doing so already established, in my view. Needs independent review, analysis and vetting.
:lol: To be fair the EPA did this to themselves by blatantly ignoring that the health of industry is part of their job.
It will be just another CBO that is wrong every single time. Doing math is hard for government, you know. Apparently lawyers are really bad at math. Who knew?
I noticed that the Supreme Court didn't consider the cost of all the regulations they must comply to in the ruling. I think if they are really going to go with the cost angle they have to consider the cost of all regulations.
Agreed, and hence my call for independent and more realistic analysis and vetting of those results before they are implemented in more poorly thought out and written regulations (seems that lawyers aren't good at writing laws either! :doh).
Agreed. The same could be said of Congress, it seems to me, but no one is holding them accountable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?