- This topic has 7 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by JanS.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 12, 2016 at 2:15 pm #833692
CO2isPlantFoodParticipantThe decision also suggests that a majority of the court has concerns about the EPA’s authority to impose the CPP under the Clean Air Act. The CPP, whatever its policy merits, is based on a fairly aggressive reading of the relevant provisions of the Clean Air Act, most notably Section 111. Even some liberal scholars, such as Harvard’s Laurence Tribe, have raised questions about the EPA’s authority here. ( Tribe is also an attorney on one of the stay applications filed with the court. )
There are serious legal arguments against specific elements of the CPP ( such as the consideration of potential emission reductions to be achieved “outside the fence” of regulated facilities ) as well as the position that Section 111 of the CAA allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants in the first place. The latter concerns raise the stakes of the case and strengthen the argument for a stay. This is because the question at issue is not merely whether the EPA observed the relevant procedural niceties or properly exercised its authority on the margin. Rather, the question is whether the EPA has the authority to do this at all.
February 12, 2016 at 4:48 pm #833716
JanSParticipantwhen you post something, please decipher things like CPP. When you google that you get “The Convention People’s Party”, “Canada Pension Plan”, “Capital Purchase Program”, or “Certified Professional Photographer”. Please don’t just assume that everyone will know what the hell you’re talking about. Thanks.
February 13, 2016 at 5:46 am #833776
DarkHawkeParticipantInteresting that you finish with the popular slogan for the Bernie Sanders presidential candidacy. Do you really think this kind of useless, wrong-headed, anti-science and unconstitutional executive order would go away under a Sanders administration? He would bring on only a yet-more onerous, invasive and dictatorial regime. You want government cut down to size, you vote for a conservative like Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. Even Donald Trump or Marco Rubio would be a step in the right direction.
February 13, 2016 at 6:28 pm #833859
JanSParticipantcould someone please explain WTF you’re talking about? And…for the record. Ben Carson is not running for president. Stay uninformed, Dark Hawke…dictatorial regime? Vote for a Repub candidate like ignorant Rubio? A Ted Cruz who puts religion over constitution? Donald Trump, who frankly doesn’t know his ass from a damned hole in the ground? Lolol…
February 14, 2016 at 7:49 pm #833962
JKBParticipantPlants…sunlight is plant food. CO2 is just there to put up the structure.
February 16, 2016 at 9:18 pm #834197
redblackParticipantJKB: umm. what?
care to share your opiates? or are you too clever by half?
darkhawke (and others): if you’re anti-government, then please stop participating in the american political process.
forthwith.
and i mean right now.
thank you.
February 16, 2016 at 10:00 pm #834198
JTBParticipantCO2 it’s generally considered proper to cite the source you are quoting, in this case the last two paragraphs from a Volokh Conspiracy column in the Washington Post written by Johnanthan Adler. Mr. Adler indeed has questions about the roll of the CPP and EPA given his tenure at the Property and Environmental Research Center. PERC’s website provides a succinct statement of its view on environmental matters:
“The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets. A 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, PERC is dedicated to the principle that individual liberty, secure property rights, and free markets are essential to the conservation of environmental resources.Originally a think-tank where scholars documented how government regulation and bureaucracy often led to environmental degradation, PERC is now the place where scholars refine the principles of free market environmentalism; the place where policy, business, and opinion leaders turn for environmental solutions; and the place where environmental entrepreneurs pair conservation and economic profit.”
So I think we now have some context for the unattributed quote you posted. Please cite your resources in the future. And it might have been more helpful to present the entire article which is actually a more complete discussion of the issues at hand than the material you selected.
February 17, 2016 at 1:23 am #834224 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.