Trump's nominee for head of the EPA....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_v._EPA
One commentator noted that Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion "exposes a divide on the Court not over environmental policy, but over the future of the administrative state."[22]

Writing for a 5–4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act unreasonably when it decided that it should not consider costs when regulating power plants.
[23] Justice Scalia analyzed the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act under Chevron Deference, and concluded that the Agency "strayed far beyond [the] bounds" of "reasonable interpretation" when it determined that it could ignore costs.
[24] Looking at the language of the Clean Air Act, Justice Scalia concluded that when "[r]ead naturally in the present context, the phrase 'appropriate and necessary' requires at least some attention to cost."[25]
Additionally, Justice Scalia wrote that it is irrational and inappropriate "to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits."[26]
Consequently, Justice Scalia ruled that the EPA "must consider cost — including, most importantly, cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary."[27]
 
Jarod said:
Trump's nominee to head the EPA acknowledge today that Climate Change is REAL...


How does that make deniers feel? Ready to admit Climate Change is occurring?
Click to expand...

Everyone admits....CLIMATE CHANGE is real. The climate has been changing since creation....that change is called seasons. What happened to Global Warming? Now its climate change...as if anyone is stupid enough to argue that the weather never changes? How long as it been since Global Warming as a buzz word was kicked off the propaganda list? Could it be around Oct. 8, 2009 when a demand from Barry Soetoro resulted in shitcanning the Global Warming buzz word? The command from the top? Replace Global Warming with Global Climate Disruption.

Remember the news conference from White House Science Czar, John Holdren...in Oct, 2009. The exact words were, "Global Warming is a very dangerous MISNOMER...." Thus, today sheep like you are using Climate Change....because even the left realized that Global Warming was Bull Shit...as confessed by this administration's own Czar....

MISNOMER: INCORRECT OR UNSUITABLE.

Feels like 'every one' of Trumps' choices will be confirmed because the liberals are LEFT (wink, wink) powerless to do jack shit about it except run their mouths...the same mouths that resulted in their recent ass kicking on Nov. 8.

Why everyone of these picks will pass the muster? Because of the precedent established by Dirty Hairy....50 + 1 is all it takes...hell holding power in both houses, Trump could pick HILLARY the loser for a position in his cabinet and she would win. ;)

Feels Good....to finally have a man of science to call bullshit when he sees it and remind everyone that consensus only works on election day. And the consensus on Nov 8 2016 among the fly over states? Trump is our man. And the questioning on the hill? As stated...everyone believes in Climate Change...why? Because its true....the climate is constantly changing around the globe and the energy from the sun is responsible for 99% of that constant weather flux.
 
Last edited:
"my guess is he was just saying it to shut up the naysayers." #173

Whether or not that was the design intention, it appears in 20:20 hindsight to have been the practical outcome.

"As long as he crushes those job killing regulations I don't give a ..." #173

Ironically, some of this enviro-madness actually creates jobs.

How many tens of thousands of U.S. tax payers have gainful employment they would otherwise not have:
- delivering and installing solar panels
- producing wind turbine components
- transporting them by rail or truck
- surveilling for locating them for maximum output
- installing them
- connecting them to the grid
- performing the periodic maintenance
- and more

Lookit:
My thanks to the poster.
The expression I'm addressing here is "job killing regulations".
That implies that the regulations at issue are a net employment reducer.

Maybe so, maybe not.

Rather than squabble like school girls about it, let's look at the data.

Do the regulations at issue kill jobs or not? If so, I'll consider supporting the effort. If not, they why kill a two-fer? Improve the environment, AND reduce the unemployment rate?! Seems like a win / win to me.

SHOW ME THE DATA !!
 
PS

a #181

Thanks for that.

BUT !!

One needs an enlightened analytical engine to consider the true costs.

For example:
Methyl-Mercury is contaminating our environment, and has entered our food chain. King Mackerel, and other species we eat have dangerous levels of neurotoxic heavy metals.
Some if not most of these toxins come from coal fired commercial electric power plants.

And part of the problem is, contamination such as petroleum in the BP / Gulf of Mexico oil spill can over time be mitigated by natural processes, broken down into less toxic forms.

But Mercury is not a compound, it's an element. Release a neurotoxic metallic element into the environment and it's there for perpetuity.

I'm not dismissing economic concerns.

But should we overlook the cost of cleaning up the toxins coal burning puts into the environment when we do the cost calculation Justice Scalia referred to?
 
sear said:
"my guess is he was just saying it to shut up the naysayers." #173

Whether or not that was the design intention, it appears in 20:20 hindsight to have been the practical outcome.

"As long as he crushes those job killing regulations I don't give a ..." #173

Ironically, some of this enviro-madness actually creates jobs.

How many tens of thousands of U.S. tax payers have gainful employment they would otherwise not have:
- delivering and installing solar panels
- producing wind turbine components
- transporting them by rail or truck
- surveilling for locating them for maximum output
- installing them
- connecting them to the grid
- performing the periodic maintenance
- and more

Lookit:
My thanks to the poster.
The expression I'm addressing here is "job killing regulations".
That implies that the regulations at issue are a net employment reducer.

Maybe so, maybe not.

Rather than squabble like school girls about it, let's look at the data.

Do the regulations at issue kill jobs or not? If so, I'll consider supporting the effort. If not, they why kill a two-fer? Improve the environment, AND reduce the unemployment rate?! Seems like a win / win to me.

SHOW ME THE DATA !!
Click to expand...

The regulations have cost jobs. A couple hundred in my home town.
Rolling them back does nothing to stop the things you describe. They did not require purchase and use if alternative items.
 
sear said:
PS

a #181

Thanks for that.

BUT !!

One needs an enlightened analytical engine to consider the true costs.

For example:
Methyl-Mercury is contaminating our environment, and has entered our food chain. King Mackerel, and other species we eat have dangerous levels of neurotoxic heavy metals.
Some if not most of these toxins come from coal fired commercial electric power plants.

And part of the problem is, contamination such as petroleum in the BP / Gulf of Mexico oil spill can over time be mitigated by natural processes, broken down into less toxic forms.

But Mercury is not a compound, it's an element. Release a neurotoxic metallic element into the environment and it's there for perpetuity.

I'm not dismissing economic concerns.

But should we overlook the cost of cleaning up the toxins coal burning puts into the environment when we do the cost calculation Justice Scalia referred to?
Click to expand...

these things generally come down to the level of the pollutant. If you completely ban coal because it releases mercury-
you are imposing draconian regs.
If you limit it to a doable level ( parts per billion etc.) ( or require clean coal -etc) then you are regulating without killing the energy sector.

I'm simply using a wide ex.here - my actual knowledge of coal particals/toxins is limited.
But that's the general idea.
 
"The regulations have cost jobs. A couple hundred in my home town." Cg #185

I'd be ASTOUNDED if it were otherwise.
But that was never the question.
The question is whether it is a NET job loser.
Some jobs will be lost.
Some jobs will be gained.
BUT !!
Nationwide, does it lose or gain, net?

"Rolling them back does nothing to stop the things you describe."

Excellent!
So let's be sure not to roll them back!

"They did not require purchase and use if alternative items."

But they may result in it.

- I've converted my home to LED lighting.
- I use an Energy Star, energy efficient refrigerator *.
- Because I've been so energy conscious, my commercial electric bill is often under $30.oo / month.

It was not "required".
But my initial investment has paid handsome $dividends.

* The fridge is often the most power hungry appliance in a home.

"If you completely ban coal because it releases mercury-
you are imposing draconian regs." a #186

It's not a binary. There are other options.
However, coal has been listed as the worst carbon polluting fuel in use in the U.S.

"If you limit it to a doable level ( parts per billion etc.) ( or require clean coal -etc) then you are regulating without killing the energy sector."

Killing coal entirely would not kill the energy sector.
Fill in every coal mine on Earth, and there will still be:
- hydro
- wind-turbine
- solar
- nuclear
- other (tidal for example)

Here's a thought coal miners might wish to heed:
"Every Presidential campaign is an epidemic of economic illiteracy, but this year is a particularly egregious case when talking about the manufacturing [jobs] crisis. What that means is manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment is declining. True. [It] Has been for 60 years. We make steel today, we made steel 20 years ago. We just make 1/3 more steel today with 2/3 fewer steel works who have gone on to other points of employment. If we have a crisis in manufacturing ... we have a calamity in agriculture, because in 1940 19% of our employers were in agriculture, 4% by 1970, 2% today. That's a triumph of American productivity, not a problem." George Will
 
^ ya ya..i get all that..what I am saying is it's not upto the EPA to kill coal (etc.) It's way beyond their purview.
And imposing draconian regs that do that in practical effect is classic federal over-reach.

If you want to kill coal -you need to do it with some acquiescence by Congress.
 
PS

"these things generally come down to the level of the pollutant." a #186

I think a #186 makes a very sharp point here, it nearly escaped me.

a) Yes. Some levels of pollution are deemed acceptable.

b) a #186 is correct to raise that specific issue here, as coal is definitely a heavy hitter in the U.S. contribution to atmospheric carbon.

BUT !!

c) What a #186 implies but did not elucidate is:
our standard for what is considered an acceptable "level of the pollutant" is changing both rapidly, and substantially.

Some of these coal fired commercial power plants were built in an era when atmospheric carbon was considered a non-issue.

d) So as a #186 suggests, the actual power plant may not pollute any more now than it did when it was new. What has changed is our understanding of what is acceptable. And that updated understanding is multiplied by newer options; options that weren't available decades ago: hydro-fracking to name but one.
 
sear said:
Ironically, some of this enviro-madness actually creates jobs.

How many tens of thousands of U.S. tax payers have gainful employment they would otherwise not have:
- delivering and installing solar panels
- producing wind turbine components
- transporting them by rail or truck
- surveilling for locating them for maximum output
- installing them
- connecting them to the grid
- performing the periodic maintenance
- and more
Click to expand...

are these your examples of job killing regulations?......building wind turbines and solar panels?......
 
PS

" it's not upto the EPA to kill coal (etc.) It's way beyond their purview.
And imposing draconian regs that do that in practical effect is classic federal over-reach.

If you want to kill coal -you need to do it with some acquiescence by Congress." a #188

I'll meet you half way on that.

We have neither outlawed horses, nor eliminated them with speciescide / equine genocide.

BUT !!

Unlike in the 18th Century, horses are no longer a primary mode of urban transportation.
That wasn't accomplished with "draconian regs" (your term).
It was accomplished by coming up with a better solution.

Not this:

41e1544868199e748b1b238e8d6f331a41fb9e2.jpg


But instead, this:

279257748f6a711694873dd617a8bad39602b5f.JPG


I not only get your point, but to some degree share it.
There should be congressional involvement in whether or not the coal industry is shut down.

But who do you think writes EPA regs.?
 
sear said:
"If you completely ban coal because it releases mercury-
you are imposing draconian regs." a #186

It's not a binary. There are other options.
However, coal has been listed as the worst carbon polluting fuel in use in the U.S.
Click to expand...

coal is bad because it releases mercury.....CFL lightbulbs are good even though each one contains more mercury than a ton of coal.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/fs095-01.html
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/08/separating-myth-from-fact-on-cfls-and-leds-five-concerns-addressed/
 
#193

At this point CFL's are a horrid idea.
I agree with you that fluorescent light that risks mercury pollution is a BAD IDEA !!

It's so severe an issue the EPA.gov site actually lists the HazMat protocol for cleaning up after a CFL breaks in the home. Hint: Do not EVER use a vacuum cleaner for such cleanup, unless the vacuum cleaner is designed for that purpose. Very few are.

The energy efficiency of CFL's was better than the incandescent bulbs they replaced.

But I think LED's have superseded both.

And the most important lights in my home are 12 VDC LED. They run off the UPS. So even when the commercial power fails, my lights remain on. They don't even flicker when the power fails. It's fantastic!

And my commercial power bill is often <$30.oo / month. Beat that!
 
anatta said:
^ no MOTT. You can't just strive by pure science alone- "damn the torpedos"- to eliminate even banal types of pollution ( like Ozone for ex) down to levels that cripple industry (without figuring in cost/benefits).

It's part of the real world equation. Good on those who help private companies with compliance -
but still the compliance has to be in the realm of real world sanity/doableness

EDIT: I'm sure that is what the Michigan vs. EPA case was about, and the decision went to the plantiff
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that's just rhetorical nonsense. I work with these issues every day and to say that science is the only stake holder and the only stake holder to be considered is a gross strawman of staggering proportions. It's simply not the reality for those of us who have to deal with these issues on a day to day basis.

My primary role, in my field, is to protect health and safety and the environment. My secondary role, which actually occupies most of my time, is to eliminate or reduce waste and thus eliminate or reduce cost. The flaw in your argument is that you are creating a false dichotomy that one can't productively consider both cost and health and safety with health and safety being first priority. The idea that they are mutually incompatible is not an argument that EPA, or myself for that matter, are making. To emphasize that point I make a pretty darned good public sector living proving that they are not mutually incompatible goals. So please spare me the false dichotomies. If you have ever been through the public comment section of the agency rule making process you'd understand just how silly your argument is. It is just completely divorced from the reality.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm sorry that's just rhetorical nonsense. I work with these issues every day and to say that science is the only stake holder and the only stake holder to be considered is a gross strawman of staggering proportions. It's simply not the reality for those of us who have to deal with these issues on a day to day basis.

My primary role, in my field, is to protect health and safety and the environment. My secondary role, which actually occupies most of my time, is to eliminate or reduce waste and thus eliminate or reduce cost. The flaw in your argument is that you are creating a false dichotomy that one can't productively consider both cost and health and safety with health and safety being first priority. The idea that they are mutually incompatible is not an argument that EPA, or myself for that matter, are making. To emphasize that point I make a pretty darned good public sector living proving that they are not mutually incompatible goals. So please spare me the false dichotomies. If you have ever been through the public comment section of the agency rule making process you'd understand just how silly your argument is. It is just completely divorced from the reality.
Click to expand...

so why was Michigan vs. the EPA litigated?

The flaw in your argument is that you are creating a false dichotomy that one can't productively consider both cost and health and safety with health and safety being first priority.
Click to expand...
the problem was the EPA was not considering costs.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-46
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that federal administrative agencies must engage in “reasoned decisionmaking,” which requires the agency to consider all relevant factors. Because the cost to power plants is certainly a relevant factor when deciding whether to regulate electric utility steam generating units (EGUs), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), should have considered the cost to power plants in making its decision. The EPA erred in interpreting the “appropriate and necessary” requirement of the Clean Air Act because it was unreasonable to interpret the phrase as not requiring the EPA to consider all relevant factors, including cost to power plants.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that, although precedent established that the courts grant agencies a great deal of deference when agencies interpret statutes that Congress left ambiguous, such deference might result in courts allowing an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
 
Milagro said:
Looks like others think the same, it is just ludicrous that no account is taken of the effect on jobs, that us just insane.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/13/not-tired-of-winning-yet/
Click to expand...
Again, your getting information from biased and subjective sources. Go ahead. Upend those CAA rulings. Those coal jobs are simply not coming back. I understand and feel for those who are being displaced but progress rolls forward. We have better technologies and resources for producing energy that are far less wasteful and dirty and cost less to produce. The demand for coal domestically is in precipitate decline because it is becoming, or has become, obsolete. No changing of the regulatory climate is going to change that. That's simply wishful thinking. I mean...the telegraph and the phonograph are not going to make a comeback either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top