"A few dollars of health care costs?" Global warming is already costing more than a few dollars.
Message from the Supreme Court: The survival of corporations takes precedence over the survival of human beings.
Message from the Supreme Court: The survival of corporations takes precedence over the survival of human beings.
4
Well, maybe the new health care law will take care of the cases of emphysema this "gift to the coal industry" ruling by the Supremes will bring.
4
In my state (RI) there is a health advisory against eating any freshwater fish, except stocked trout. This advisory is based on mercury levels in fish tissue. Over 98% of this mercury is atmospheric, largely from coal-fired plants. Because the source is air-borne, even lakes in pristine areas are polluted, with fish unsafe to eat. How do you put a price on that?
5
we`re poisoning our air and water
and befouling our own nest..
it needs to stop happening
it needed to stop ...long before yesterday..
but wait ..
It`s going to cost too..much you say ?
well then never mind...
let`s instead ..just kiss this world goodbye eh
perhaps a special few of us will have saved enough of that money to fly away to another one
and befouling our own nest..
it needs to stop happening
it needed to stop ...long before yesterday..
but wait ..
It`s going to cost too..much you say ?
well then never mind...
let`s instead ..just kiss this world goodbye eh
perhaps a special few of us will have saved enough of that money to fly away to another one
4
Nature protection is okay. But we should also take care of our 'pockets'. I mean business functioning and it's payback, some spheres of economy and energy independence. Eventually authorities need to use common sense. More strict regulations = higher costs for final consumer. No matter if we speak about power plants or regulations in transportation business [EPA regulations for commercial vehicles].
What's crazy about this is over all the previous years that these plants have been polluting the air, they could have taken measures to curtail it, PLUS they get to write everything off on their corporate taxes! So in the end it wouldn't have cost them a thing.
But, in the long run, who needs to breathe anyway? We're all just fodder for corporate gain.
But, in the long run, who needs to breathe anyway? We're all just fodder for corporate gain.
5
I might say "2 out of 3 ain't bad", but in this instance, it is. While equality and healthcare are important issues, the radical alteration of our environment through the introduction of fossil greenhouse gases is the most important issue facing our species. By comparison, ensuring equal rights and avoiding the imposition of bigotry and religious mores upon society are a mere trifle.
Our biosphere is changing, rapidly and not for the better - at least for the majority of the current species on the planet. We are responsible for that change and we are the only species that can actively do something about it. Instead, we continue to pander to the interests of the fossil fuel industry - an industry that has risen to a position of inscrutable wealth and power in our world. That industry has shaped our environment, our economy, our military and geopolitical position. If we are to fulfill the promise of the human race, we need to put aside the crude and destructive things of today. We can do it - but only if we can overcome the rank greed of the few.
Our biosphere is changing, rapidly and not for the better - at least for the majority of the current species on the planet. We are responsible for that change and we are the only species that can actively do something about it. Instead, we continue to pander to the interests of the fossil fuel industry - an industry that has risen to a position of inscrutable wealth and power in our world. That industry has shaped our environment, our economy, our military and geopolitical position. If we are to fulfill the promise of the human race, we need to put aside the crude and destructive things of today. We can do it - but only if we can overcome the rank greed of the few.
6
According to Justice Scalia it's not rational to impose costs on industry simply to save lives. After al,l what's a few hundred thousand extra cases of emphysema, heart disease or other chronic lung ailments. If people near these plants suffer they can move elsewhere, at their own expense of course.
Of course there are billions of dollars of cost associated with not imposing stronger emissions standards, but the public bears those costs in the form of hospital admissions and early deaths. You can't expect investors to loose profits for the sake of saving lives.
And you can't expect this court to read the Clean Air Act as it was originally intended. They were appointed because they believed private property was more important than the lives of working class people and they have delivered on that ideology with a vengeance.
Of course there are billions of dollars of cost associated with not imposing stronger emissions standards, but the public bears those costs in the form of hospital admissions and early deaths. You can't expect investors to loose profits for the sake of saving lives.
And you can't expect this court to read the Clean Air Act as it was originally intended. They were appointed because they believed private property was more important than the lives of working class people and they have delivered on that ideology with a vengeance.
9
Another one of the Supremes' incredibly unbelievably self-serving decisions where they bring in cost as the reason for rejecting a perfectly sensible regulation!
As though the human cost of the exposure to this pollution means nothing.
Oh, I forgot that this is the court that told us that "corporations are people".
The unholy five strike again!!!
As though the human cost of the exposure to this pollution means nothing.
Oh, I forgot that this is the court that told us that "corporations are people".
The unholy five strike again!!!
7
Great news for our families and children. No need for clean air.
6
The main thrust of Kagan's dissent is disingenuous. Her approval of the plan would put it on a path that would create its own forward force and very naturally create a climate that would make it difficult for workers to advise against it.
1
Coal as a resourse and an industry is well past it's prime, and Its harmful effects on the environment are more than the its value sans the creation of cleaner production and use.
3
This is indeed upsetting. Are not the costs of healthcare, the result of our polluted environment, staggering now? Es regards to jobs. No jobs would have to be lost, not when one thinks progressively and creates jobs that improves our environment rather than continue to destroy our planet. Look around Corporate polluters. Do you not have children and grandchildren who would like to have a future that looks a lot more environmentally friendly? Just like the tobacco industry claims that smoking doesn't make us sick, how much longer to we have to wait to have industry fall in line with the EPA. In the long run we all will benefit from this. is it to please the stockholders? They too have children and grandchldren. They would benefit by new industries concentrating on clean energy, clean air. I would throw in population control.
5
I will bet it has cost much more than s "few million" to clean up coal ash and the Gulf oil spill.
4
Tragic. So...lets break it down.
1. Gay Marriage - Check
2. Lethal Injection - Check
3. Environment - Negative.
Without # 3 ? Doom.
You can't have human rights with a planet in deep distress. She's getting very tired. Can't you see?
1. Gay Marriage - Check
2. Lethal Injection - Check
3. Environment - Negative.
Without # 3 ? Doom.
You can't have human rights with a planet in deep distress. She's getting very tired. Can't you see?
3
Well, yes, Lord, we know You left the earth in our care. Sorry we went ahead and poisoned it, but it was cheaper than cleaning it up. And the Supreme Court said it was okay. You aren't mad, are You?
5
Many more than on 9/11 will die or become ill
From the toxins those smokestacks continue to spill,
the death penalty foes were told to chill;
In both instances, the SCOTUS's pals, the pharmaceuticals, will sell many more pills
From the toxins those smokestacks continue to spill,
the death penalty foes were told to chill;
In both instances, the SCOTUS's pals, the pharmaceuticals, will sell many more pills
2
The Times ran a story a few weeks ago written by its correspondent in India (returning home) that air pollution in India damages the lungs of a large percentage of children. We also read about the pollution in Chinese cities. Justice Scalia and his colleagues who voted to make the United States more like those countries should visit polluted India and then come back here and write about how misguided the government is in protecting us from those horrors.
7
This ruling is a shot across the bow, establishing a clear tone that the 5 justices nominated by Republican Presidents will uphold the interests of big business and narrowly defined, short term national economic interests over a more sophisticated, nuanced understanding of the unmeasured costs of economic externalities, such as climate change and resulting extinction of species.
Measuring the cost benefit of unregulated emissions, whether mercury or carbon, is a near impossible fool's errand at this point in our understanding of climate science. The justices are not stupid; it's a conscious, clever stalling tactic designed to delay the EPA's efforts to regulate carbon emissions further, because executive action is the only means Obama has remaining in the face of a Republican Congress hidebound to industry and Wall St. money and lobbyists.
Measuring the cost benefit of unregulated emissions, whether mercury or carbon, is a near impossible fool's errand at this point in our understanding of climate science. The justices are not stupid; it's a conscious, clever stalling tactic designed to delay the EPA's efforts to regulate carbon emissions further, because executive action is the only means Obama has remaining in the face of a Republican Congress hidebound to industry and Wall St. money and lobbyists.
5
Republicans for air pollution!
7
What a travesty.
6
This decision is dreadful. Coal poses many problems. It is the main US source of carbon dioxide which warms the planet. It is a major source of air-borne poisonous heavy metals such as mercury and lead. It is the main US source of particulate matter which gets into our lungs and causes premature death in over 10,000 of us every year. Coal mining kills miners in explosions and collapses and by black-lung disease. Coal mining destroys the environment---read Grisham's book Gray Mountain.
We should tax coal and give some of the money to displaced miners.
We should tax coal and give some of the money to displaced miners.
5
If the costs of 200 years of coal pollution were tallied up, the benefit would outweigh the cost by at least 1000 to 1. And Scalia thinks that situation should continue ad infinitum. "A few dollars in health or environmental benefits" indeed. This is a guy who has shown nothing but hostility to the environment and human health. His opinion should not factor into this discussion.
5
What value can one put on perhaps saving the planet or at least millions of its people from abject misery? The costs, of course, will be negligible if there is no planet left to save.
5
The conservative wing of the SCOTUS believes it is a law unto itself, empowered to consign to oblivion even the most forward-thinking legislative provisions whenever they offend its backward ideology. To this foreign observer, there can be no price put on the health of individuals or of the planet whose very existence these insufferable unelected ideologues take for granted.
5
What is the value of common people's health? Let Scalia breathe air in Beijing without a mask for a week and come back and still talk about costs of air pollution control!!!
10
So, there's no language in the bill requiring a cost benefit analysis, but Scalia says "statutory context" dictates one? Hm, maybe, but I hope everybody sees how ridiculous this makes his dissent on Obamacare, where he claimed an obvious drafting error, contrary to the entire "statutory context" required gutting the Act. What a SLEAZY Justice. What IS his judicial philosophy? Hm, what day is this? It'w whatever gets him to the politically desirable right wing result he desires.
11
There's actually less here than meets the eye. The EPA has always considered costs as part of the regulatory phase. This ruling simply mandates that the cost benefit analysis be done in the first phase of a proposed rule rather than in the regulatory phase. Not an insurmountable hurdle by any stretch.
3
The cost side should take the healthcare cost of pollution to anyone living in proximity into account, not just cost of the new regulation to the polluter.
6
So SCOTUS is consistent this week regarding suppporting lethality : OK's putting lethal drug in convicts and other lethal substances in our air.
7
The EPA has no economic stake in performing its cost-benefit analysis while the industry that is being regulated clearly does have an economic interest in skewing its cost-benefit analysis.
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alioto today supported the death penalty, voted against cleaner air, rejected Marriage Equality and attempted to stop providing health care subsidies to poor people.
They are truly horrible people.
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alioto today supported the death penalty, voted against cleaner air, rejected Marriage Equality and attempted to stop providing health care subsidies to poor people.
They are truly horrible people.
10
I love how Kevin McCarthy claims the EPA's rules "burden the public", as if you and I are directly bothered by these regulations. Those covered by these regs are the businesses that have, for years, failed to bear the appropriate share of the true costs of using the dangerous chemicals and/or emitting the dangerous substances as byproducts of their industrial processes. Instead, McCarthy and his Republican colleagues want ALL of us to pick up the tab for post-facto cleanup of the ground, air and water, not to mention the hospitalization costs for those sickened by these insufficiently regulated industrial processes.
8
A ridiculous excuse. What if we'd considered a cost benefit analysis on the abolition of slavery? Do what's right, not what's cost-effective.
7
Do we blame the 21 states with GOP governors who brought on this lawsuit or do we look for the real culprits in this?
That is right, you, my progressive friends are to blame for this!
You think those local and state elections are not as "important" as that once every four year election for president.
Well guess what, this ruling shows how wrong you are.
Because, do you think for a moment that any of this would have happened if you took seriously those "unsexy" local and state elections?
So, stop blaming the conservative justices on the SOCTUS or GOP lawmakers or big business interests - blame yourself for being lazy, unengaged and staying home on election day.
That is right, you, my progressive friends are to blame for this!
You think those local and state elections are not as "important" as that once every four year election for president.
Well guess what, this ruling shows how wrong you are.
Because, do you think for a moment that any of this would have happened if you took seriously those "unsexy" local and state elections?
So, stop blaming the conservative justices on the SOCTUS or GOP lawmakers or big business interests - blame yourself for being lazy, unengaged and staying home on election day.
5
SCOTUS judges are unelected. Voting does nothing to blunt their power.
"Punishing costs" of clean air.
Their freedom to pollute means all others must put up with it.
It's as bad as freedom to drive on any side of the road you like.
The US glorification of "freedom" is simple minded.
The really punishing costs are paid by those who breath.
Their freedom to pollute means all others must put up with it.
It's as bad as freedom to drive on any side of the road you like.
The US glorification of "freedom" is simple minded.
The really punishing costs are paid by those who breath.
6
21 states with GOP governors brought this suit.
So, my progressive friends do you still think the only time to come out and vote is once every four years to elect the next occupant of the White House?
Once again, this count case is a prime example of your foolishness in your continual thinking that those local and state elections are not sexy or important enough to cast a vote for.
So, my progressive friends do you still think the only time to come out and vote is once every four years to elect the next occupant of the White House?
Once again, this count case is a prime example of your foolishness in your continual thinking that those local and state elections are not sexy or important enough to cast a vote for.
4
Profit is much more important than clean air or clean water.
5
It is remarkable that so many people do not understand the parameters of this opinion. The Court merely stated that the very law that this regulation is predicated upon requires a cost benefit analysis. Given more recent opinions by the Court to ignore the written law, I understand that it is confusing to believe that the Court should show some restraint. The proper judicial restraint is as important or more important than the result. The Court rewrote Obamacare, but that did not make it right or appropriate and should not mean that the Court should rewrite that rules for the EPA. We are losing all sense of the rule of law in this country.
4
Thank ypu for allowing me to read 1 comment with thought and a grasp of the actual issue.
1
Republican Congressman Kevin McCarthy: "“The Supreme Court’s decision today vindicates the House’s legislative actions to... institute some common sense..."
Not sure what McCarthy and his Republican colleagues in the House have to teach us about "common sense" after voting more than 60 times to repeal the ACA.
Not sure what McCarthy and his Republican colleagues in the House have to teach us about "common sense" after voting more than 60 times to repeal the ACA.
6
America is not cutting costs where it matters. It can very well cut costs greatly in political funding, military budget, political lobbying resulting in wholesale corruption and completely stopping unwanted wars but unfortunately cost cutting only comes here where environment and people are hurt badly. This judgement proves beyond doubt that vested interests can do whatever they want whenever they like and whichever the country that might be.
6
Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits."
Should we ever need to attach a dollar value to a person's health and life, am sure Antonin could do that.
Should we ever need to attach a dollar value to a person's health and life, am sure Antonin could do that.
7
Scalia's comments reflect a totally monetary decision. Someone on the health lost end must pay for the energy industries monetary gain.
Why is it so difficult for so many to see this?
Scalia and his conservative cronies are the product of right wing politicians. This is so why we need Bernie.
Why is it so difficult for so many to see this?
Scalia and his conservative cronies are the product of right wing politicians. This is so why we need Bernie.
2
"Industry groups...challenged the E.P.A.’s decision...saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose."
Industry was obviously concerned regarding the "punishing (FINANCIAL) costs" not the "punishing (HUMAN) costs," and the majority conservative justices on the Court assured us that money concerns trumps human concerns.
Industry was obviously concerned regarding the "punishing (FINANCIAL) costs" not the "punishing (HUMAN) costs," and the majority conservative justices on the Court assured us that money concerns trumps human concerns.
6
Congratulations to Americas coal miners, you rule the day.
So a cost benefit analysis is appropriate here but not appropriate in other situations that might jeopardize corporate profits, say for example, in the case of health care. Oh no, not death panels!!
2
Did I not hear that the Republicans have passed a bill in the House that will keep you and I from finding out where the food that we purchase and eat comes from?
BTW there is already a law in Europe that they have to list where all products come from on all products so it will not cost food industry a cent more since they are already set up for it. Think about it the next time you purchase chicken and beef for dinner. Was the meat inspected, was it kept in cold storage at the proper degree, does it has bacteria that your body can fight?
What next a bill to keep us from suing the coal and oil Industry when we find out we have lung cancer because of rulings like this?
I am glad we now have a National Health Care Program. Now the rich and corporations that put profit before the people, will have to pay for the mess they make of our water, air and land.
Good luck America.
BTW there is already a law in Europe that they have to list where all products come from on all products so it will not cost food industry a cent more since they are already set up for it. Think about it the next time you purchase chicken and beef for dinner. Was the meat inspected, was it kept in cold storage at the proper degree, does it has bacteria that your body can fight?
What next a bill to keep us from suing the coal and oil Industry when we find out we have lung cancer because of rulings like this?
I am glad we now have a National Health Care Program. Now the rich and corporations that put profit before the people, will have to pay for the mess they make of our water, air and land.
Good luck America.
2
Are profits really more important than people? One wonders how a ceo would react if his child suffered from mercury poisoning...we all know the answer, I hope.
2
I would have gladly traded a no vote on gay marriage, which I support, for a yes vote on emission rules. We are moving inexorably toward more rights for sexual minorities, but on climate change - not so much.
There simply is no price tag on God-given life and human health, not money, must be the priority. There are probably ways they can work around costs but ultimately human welfare must prevail. This is just another one of the issues that make it apparent we need a major change in priorities, a new paradigm, in which life and health, not money, takes priority, money is subservient to life, not vice-versa. It is ludicrous to say life is worth less money. Life is priceless, it is given by God and cannot be replaced. Money can be replaced. The ruling was clearly along party lines - a partisan decision in favor of Big Pollution at the expense of human life and the planet. Big mistake. But knowing Obama, he'll find a way to make things work, and soon enough there will be new judges appointed to the Court after Hillary is elected, and there will be big changes coming.
2
I think it needs to be a balancing act and I personally don't know what the right balance is. Wealth is what separates 1st world nations where health, safety, education, and life expectancy are generally much better. For example, building in third world countries which are built to lower less expensive standards are far more likely to fall down in an earth quake than those in California and Japan.
If we spend too much money on one concern (like pollution) then we have less to spend in other areas like building standards, medical care, education, ...
John
If we spend too much money on one concern (like pollution) then we have less to spend in other areas like building standards, medical care, education, ...
John
1
This is a catastrophically wrong decision of the Supreme Court—on a par with the Citizens United idiocy.
Just one example: rising fetal cord blood levels of the neurotoxin methyl mercury (CH3Hg+) in populations where pollution from coal-fired power plants drifts (often hundreds of miles from the power plant).
Time to retire all coal-fired power plants!!
A physician MD
Just one example: rising fetal cord blood levels of the neurotoxin methyl mercury (CH3Hg+) in populations where pollution from coal-fired power plants drifts (often hundreds of miles from the power plant).
Time to retire all coal-fired power plants!!
A physician MD
5
Want to factor in the cost? Great. Let's factor in the cost to human health, and see where the balance is between corporate profits and the benefit to society. Bets, anyone?
2
We should put health and safety in the forefront. You've banned smoking, but you can't ban toxic fumes from industrial plants? Give your heads a shake. Where are all the anti smoking advocates. Where are all the MADD people. Are you too afraid to take care of yourselves? I guess so, you don't even have proper health care. Say goodnight America.
2
This is what has been happening all the time in the world against public safety and purely in the interest of the so called big fellows, this is not done. Literally there is no justice in the judiciary, political and administrative systems. Common man always suffers since no one cares. Alas, a positive step by the President is nipped in the bud. This step will surely contribute to the ever increasing global warming problems.
1
Private businesses are not responsible for the environment. They are responsible for making money for their stockholders. The government is responsible for protecting the environment and sets the rules for doing that. Many times, it is not possible to put a dollar value on environment protection. How much is it worth to keep mercury out of our environment? How much is it worth to have visibility across the city each day? How much is it worth to have healthy forests? How much is it worth to have clean rivers and oceans? The public elects its government and the public should be deciding how much it is worth to protect its environment. If the public feels that the protection methods need to be strengthened they will have to elect representatives who share that belief. In the past, the public has decided to elect conservative Republicans who generally lean toward profits over environment (less regulations and lower taxes). Those Republicans have appointed the five justices who decided for profit over environmental protection. Despite the fact that the justices of the Supreme Court are neither businessmen nor environmental scientists, I think it's fair to suggest that the decision they made yesterday was not based on the expert evidence that was presented to them but on the basis of political philosophy. Who couldn't have predicted this vote by the court well in advance of any evidence presented? If the public doesn't like it, they have to vote the R's out.
5
As usual....money trumps all in this country. Good health be damned.
2
The EPA was arrogant to think that it shouldn't have to consider cost as a factor before issuing new regulations. Even this increasingly liberal leaning SC voted against this administration. I am not saying that cost should be the only consideration, or even the most important one, but it has to be one of the factors analyzed if we expect to have a rational and efficient set of regulations and rules. Another good call by the SC imo...they are on a roll.
It was considered and completed before the final rule was issued. The issue before the court was where the cost benefit analysis had to be done. Haven't
you read the opinion? The EPA normally does cost benefit analysis on every rule. Have you read them before?
you read the opinion? The EPA normally does cost benefit analysis on every rule. Have you read them before?
1
Makes one wonder how much mercury exposure the 5 justices had in their lives? Could that explain their cloudy thinking?
1
This is an expected ruling, with the five so-called "conservatives" ruling in favor of the coal plant industry. Makes me wonder who the real conservatives are - the folks who are open to poisoning the environment for profit, or the folks who do not want to play games or take risks with the only home we humans have, planet earth...
6
According to a 2010 study by the Clean Air Task Force, air pollution from coal-fired power plants accounts for more than 13,000 premature deaths, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost workdays in this country each year. The total cost is $ 100 billion annually.
6
@Gonzo - Problem is, according to EPA's on numbers, the so-called Mercury rule had an unmeasurable benefit related to projected mercury reduction at an annual cost of over $6,000,000,000. To arrive at a potential Mercury reduction benefit EPA created hypothetical pregnant women who eat fish at least two time a day, five days a week, for a year and all the fish they catch themselves locally. And even at this high consumption rate, EPA estimates child born would have an IQ loss of 0.007 points. EPA put a monetized cost of this IQ drop at a few million dollars, maybe. Note that estimated IQ drop avoided is so low that an IQ test cannot measure it.
Personally, in my opinion if society had an extra $6,000,000,000/year sitting around, I'd rather build a few hospitals, give college scholarships to poor kids, etc.
Personally, in my opinion if society had an extra $6,000,000,000/year sitting around, I'd rather build a few hospitals, give college scholarships to poor kids, etc.
Well, my goodness: without the brain damage caused by exposing infants and children to environmental mercury, where would the next generation of Republican voters come from?
11
So, humans, this is what seems like a good way of doing things, just keep poisoning the planet for profit. When you go extinct, I do not want to hear a single complaint, because this type of behavior makes your extinction a well-deserved and beneficial thing.
7
The Justices have now become actuaries. They know how to balance the scales of corporate profits vs. human life. And sometimes the health & welfare of individuals is just cost prohibitive.
6
Welcome to the 13th Century. Let us keep blowing the tops off of mountains and sending men below ground as in centuries past. Within the next 10 to 20 years, the USA will be inundated with new, modern, perhaps not even well-known as of today sources of energy. From Germany, France, the Netherlands, China, Scandinavia, Japan, many countries. And conservatives will complain, "Where was President Obama and why don't we have such modern innovations in energy production?"
5
What a burden the E.P.A is causing us humans! They're trying to entrust longevity and health for all the inhabitants of the Earth! Are you burdened by the E.P.A.? Or are you "struggling to get by and IMPROVE your lives in this economy?" What?!?!
“From its ozone to greenhouse gas to navigable waters rules, the E.P.A. continues to burden the public with more and more costs even as so many are still struggling to get by and improve their lives in this economy,” said Kevin McCarthy of Califoria, the House majority leader.“
“From its ozone to greenhouse gas to navigable waters rules, the E.P.A. continues to burden the public with more and more costs even as so many are still struggling to get by and improve their lives in this economy,” said Kevin McCarthy of Califoria, the House majority leader.“
3
This whole idea of emissions pollution is based on voodoo science. When Obama came up with this idea to make EPA the all knowing and do as we say agency, many industries in the Midwest began thinking of closing up and moving overseas. Even the reduction in clean coal operations has created unjust rate increases for many consumers. Those who support stringent emissions requirements must have some fiduciary interests in alternative energy sources--sources that are in no way currently meeting present day needs.
3
And what leads you to this conclusion, Fox News? Why is the simple chemistry of pollution "voodoo science"? Do you actually know anything about it?
See the thing is, for-profit companies show no interest in limiting their environmental impact. We do need oversight, pollution does destroy the environment, and it causes cancer, birth defects, and so forth. Alternative energy sources, not dependent on limited fossil fuels, can't provide for all our needs now because we haven't invested heavily in them, and once we do, they will easily provide all we need without wrecking the planet.
So, can you come up with any fact-based reasons not to protect the environment, or will you at least admit you have no idea about anything related to the subject?
See the thing is, for-profit companies show no interest in limiting their environmental impact. We do need oversight, pollution does destroy the environment, and it causes cancer, birth defects, and so forth. Alternative energy sources, not dependent on limited fossil fuels, can't provide for all our needs now because we haven't invested heavily in them, and once we do, they will easily provide all we need without wrecking the planet.
So, can you come up with any fact-based reasons not to protect the environment, or will you at least admit you have no idea about anything related to the subject?
4
yes dan I do know about it. First of all, because of this reckless over regulation by Obama and EPA, utility rates have skyrocketed for those who are affected. One upper income city with an excellent school system has been relegated to critical watch because the taxes paid by the utility are no longer coming in. EPA ordered such vast repairs that it became not cost effective to retool the power plant. As for fossil fuels--I do know this. Oil and gas are the most effective fuels currently used. They are reliable and relatively inexpensive compared to solar or those ugly inefficient wind turbines. BTW, I work in the steel industry and manufacture pipe for these industries. I'm currently on lay off because of import dumping and excessive EPA regulations placed on my employer during the manufacturing process. Because of Obama and EPA and regulation supporters like you, we can no longer compete on the world market. Thanks.
1
Of course your job is all that matters, never mind other factors that make "your" steel uncompetitive on the world market.
Here's what I still don't get: EPA accounted for cost when it decided what the rule should be, aka, how stringently to regulate. But the SC says they didn't account for cost when deciding to make a rule in the first place. But how can you "account for cost" without going through a rule-making process that determines what the cost of a specific rules package would be? Other than to say "it would cost something," which it always would. EPA found that with the rule it did make, the benefits to the public far outweighed the costs. Now the industry may disagree, but of course that would be ruling on the merits, which we can't do when we can use some kind of narrow rationale to protect the public interest. These utilities are ALL regulated monopolies anyway, so they are GUARANTEED to make a profit. Since many have already taken steps to comply with the rule, and will continue to do so, I would love to see how much this really does cost consumers. I'll bet its hardly anything.
7
I am surprised that this article on the SCOTUS decision does not include coverage of the dissenting opinions. Recent cover of other decisions by this court has included extensive coverage of statements by dissenting judges.
7
Ironically some of the justices in the majority make rulings on abortion that are called "pro-life." If one really cares about saving babies, then one should support regulations on neurotoxic pollutants like mercury, which harm fetuses, babies and children.
7
Has there ever been a case in which an industry has not claimed that the costs to implement necessary changes have not been excessive?
And has there ever been an "analysis" by the industry that does not minimize the effects to people, water, environment of their operations?
Does this mean that as long that the costs of limiting dangerous pollution can be shown to be more than the benefit, however small the differential that ,no rules can never be made to remedying the situation. We have people, and I am sure that the conservative judges are totally in agreement with it, that don't believe in climate change, something that is evident all over the globe. This being so, how are you going to convince anyone that the effect on human health (and eventually on medical expenses) is part of the cost-benefit equation?
You can tell that Scalia is running of arguments by his descent into disqualification of others' reasoning and the increasing use of supposedly
earthy phrases.
And has there ever been an "analysis" by the industry that does not minimize the effects to people, water, environment of their operations?
Does this mean that as long that the costs of limiting dangerous pollution can be shown to be more than the benefit, however small the differential that ,no rules can never be made to remedying the situation. We have people, and I am sure that the conservative judges are totally in agreement with it, that don't believe in climate change, something that is evident all over the globe. This being so, how are you going to convince anyone that the effect on human health (and eventually on medical expenses) is part of the cost-benefit equation?
You can tell that Scalia is running of arguments by his descent into disqualification of others' reasoning and the increasing use of supposedly
earthy phrases.
6
Too bad we do not get to choose the source of our energy. If we could, millions of customers could demand green energy (as I think they would), putting the coal plants out of business.
5
Hi, Mark.
Check out your options in Pennsylvania.
The PA Public Utility Commission has a PAPowerSwitch site that let's you shop for electricity providers there. I think it's something becoming common in many states after the waves of deregulation in recent decades.
http://www.papowerswitch.com/
Check out your options in Pennsylvania.
The PA Public Utility Commission has a PAPowerSwitch site that let's you shop for electricity providers there. I think it's something becoming common in many states after the waves of deregulation in recent decades.
http://www.papowerswitch.com/
4
Thx. Will do.
1
I realize that the SCOTUS is supposed to rule only on Constitutional issues, as it apparently did in this instance. However, to what extant, if any, do individual members of the Court have the requisite background and experience to arrive at the judgement (as Scalia described in the majority opinion) that the benefits of tougher EPA emission rules would result in a benefit calculated in mere millions of dollars? Where did that figure come from?
Or should we, as citizens, not raise such awkward questions?
Or should we, as citizens, not raise such awkward questions?
5
I don't think this means that the EPA has to accept the coal industry's claims of such a low value benefit. Rather - that the cost analysis needs to occur earlier in the regulatory process.
1
According to the article, it came from the only source a hidebound ideologue like Scalia ever pays any attention to - those person-like corporations whose oxen these rules gore.
That noted, even if he hadn't had industry propaganda to spout, he'd simply have invented some other rationale for his generally antediluvian mindset--just as Linda Greenhouse so masterfully pointed out he did in his recent almost childishly petulant dissent in the ACA case.
That noted, even if he hadn't had industry propaganda to spout, he'd simply have invented some other rationale for his generally antediluvian mindset--just as Linda Greenhouse so masterfully pointed out he did in his recent almost childishly petulant dissent in the ACA case.
1
Earlier, like before you know what the rule might be, apparently. That's like trying to figure out if you can afford to buy a house without looking at houses!
2
It's important to do one's homework. Doing a proper cost/benefit analysis up front hopefully results in smarter regulation. In other words, if the EPA has a goal of cutting mercury emissions by such-and-such, they should be thinking about the best possible regulatory environment that will achieve those goals for the least cost. I don't want them to compromise their goals for cutting emissions; in fact, I think they're more likely to achieve those goals *if* they are mindful of costs. Always go after the lowest hanging fruit. The goal is not to punish utilities; the goal is a clean environment.
1
I hate to say it, and hate even more to think it in the United States of America, but I have to wonder if maybe President Obama getting the fast track trade agreement with Asian countries, with all the wealth it provides and protects, was a trade off for the male corporate catholic majority supreme court deciding in favor of health care and gay marriage in exchange for the trade bill and taking the teeth out of OUR measly environmental protection. We know Mr. Scalia meets regularly with Dick Cheney - even hunts with him - and we know Mr. Thomas is no friend of democracy for people of any color. We know Mr. Cruz recruited Mr. Roberts to work on the Bush, Jr. legal team and was appointed chief justice by Bush, Jr. 2+2 still equals 4. And don't start yelling about conspiracy theories - there is solid proof that WE and OUR democracy have been victims of what Hillary Rodham Clinton named the great right-wing conspiracy when they were trying to impeach OUR President Clinton. The greediest, most socially unconscious, most despicable people have taken over OUR democracy in America and all that can stop them is OUR votes. The next Congress can take away free trade agreements and tax back all the stolen wealth it allowed the top 1% global financial elite to amass and hide. NOW is the time, Good People of America.
10
The only conclusion one can draw from this ruling; their environments are immune from these pesky toxins.
5
Thanks heavens - I was a little concerned at least one member of the Supreme Court might be conscious stricken enough to side with saving our air and water.....good to know I wasn't disappointed; the five remain corporate tools. Hey those who are counting on voting Republican this election.....remember your choices as your children, grandchildren and other dear ones develop asthma, cancer, and various other ailments. Explain it away to them as they struggle to breath
12
Wait....did Justice Scalia decide based on the "statutory content" of this rule or the textual content? Did the dissenting justices criticize his use of "jiggery pokery" to elaborate on what is in fact his definition of what a "rational" estimate of the costs associated with the rule ought to be as opposed to what the regulatory agency is legislatively determined to provide.
Honestly, does anyone have a good sense that SCOTUS has lost its mooring and is now a highly politicized judicial arm of the Republican Party.
John Roberts likened SCOTUS to being umpires or referees. Seems to me they are more like bookies who have decided to have a stake in the outcomes.
Honestly, does anyone have a good sense that SCOTUS has lost its mooring and is now a highly politicized judicial arm of the Republican Party.
John Roberts likened SCOTUS to being umpires or referees. Seems to me they are more like bookies who have decided to have a stake in the outcomes.
6
Someone should have pulled an Erin Brokovich stunt - and told Scalia and the group that the water in the glass in front of them came from a source next to a poorly regulated factory.
And then observed the honorable justices trying to get through the day without taking a sip.
And then observed the honorable justices trying to get through the day without taking a sip.
9
I haven't noticed any commenters ruing the fact that the justices have left their catholic faith behind on this ruling. As a matter of fact, they ignored their catholic duty to respond to the Pope's teaching.
They remain faithful to one set of principles only, those of the church of Koch.
They remain faithful to one set of principles only, those of the church of Koch.
12
The Pope did not issue an edict.
Why aren't companies proving their products safe and emissions non toxic before going to production, instead of after decades of harm?
4
If the EPA can't regulate, why do we have government at all? If we don't need government, why would we need a Supreme Court?
5
This ruling should apply to more than EPA. How about we require cost benefit analyses for military, CIA, and NSA programs? How many billions (or is it trillions?) have been spent by NSA, and how many lives have they saved? If we can justify spending billions per life to capture terrorists, then we should be willing to spend just as much to save lives from pollution.
11
The EPA like the rest of government spending in general, shows government workers and government officials never prioritize anything. They have to have it all, and end up with nothing. They often spend money on trifles and then say they don't have money for children's milk.
They should have ONLY gone after mercury, and concentrated efforts only on this toxin, and left green house gases for another day, one is a deadly poison, the other comes off of the ocean in ways we cannot stop as mere mortals.
Go after deadly poisons, and use more effort against bad things, and leave the puddles and the dust on the ranches until you have the important things done.
They should have ONLY gone after mercury, and concentrated efforts only on this toxin, and left green house gases for another day, one is a deadly poison, the other comes off of the ocean in ways we cannot stop as mere mortals.
Go after deadly poisons, and use more effort against bad things, and leave the puddles and the dust on the ranches until you have the important things done.
I think, after viewing the facts, the major reason big companies are still using tons of fossil fuels is because of all the government subsidies. Many companies already use green energy or have investments in it.
3
Who's that joker from California that railed against EPA rulings such as limits on gases that deplete the ozone layer? Hello? That one has been established science for decades! How many millions of cases of skin cancer would we have today without the limits on CFCs?
The constantly growing depth of institutional stupidity of Republicans never ceases to amaze me.
The constantly growing depth of institutional stupidity of Republicans never ceases to amaze me.
14
"a few dollars in health or environmental benefits." Justice Scalia should be ashamed of himself. Although, considering the name-calling he resorts to when he disagrees with a decision, I am tempting to call him some names, too. But will stick to suggesting that he is most transparent and reveals his true political believing when he gets to write the majority opinion. Very sad day for folks living downwind of coal-fired power plants!
10
Ah, once again atrocious law as well as accounting from the Scalia gang. Ruled against because of "only a few dollars" on the health side? Maybe those affected by power plant pollution should send their health care costs (and their families their funeral costs) not covered by their health plans to Scalia. Oh yeah, he voted against ACA also. Go figure (he sure can't). Scalia, the new face of Alfred E. Newman, "What, me worry?" He sits in air conditioned comfort with a tax payer funded health plan for life, emerging only to harangue "liberals" on college campuses. A disgrace to his vaunted Jesuit education.
14
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech the court has systematically stripped us of rights and now regulations that could save lives. We can impeach the justices. It's time to start hearings to impeaching them now.
5
With a clear "party-line" division in the court, most recent cases have hinged on how justice Kennedy decides. Why do we then bother with the opinions of other justices, and instead just ask how justice Kennedy wants to tule?
4
“It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.” ~ Saclia
Since when is the guiding principle of law supposed to be economic?
Is "justice" always rational?
Where it is written that things must be "rational" -- or that "rational" is necessarily "appropriate" -- in any of the the texts, of which Scalia famously calls for an "originalist" reading?
Since when is the guiding principle of law supposed to be economic?
Is "justice" always rational?
Where it is written that things must be "rational" -- or that "rational" is necessarily "appropriate" -- in any of the the texts, of which Scalia famously calls for an "originalist" reading?
6
In Washington money speaks louder than the lives of my children and yours. It's considered free speech. Free speech = money?
9
Trillions for lie-induced wars in the Middle East, compared to which the billions at issue here is chump change. For one, I would rather have cleaner air.
16
It is important to remember that cost/benefit must reflect dollars. Only dollars can be considered a benefit, not health per se. Any health issues must be translated into hard dollar costs. The issue of human health has no standing to this court, as Justice Scalia intoned.
7
The Republican majority's only goal is to make this country ruled by Corporations and the county's ruled by the extremist religious right wing.
That sounds like the 1930's in Europe all over again.
Congratulations Supreme Court you did it again, bring America back to the time when Feudalism was the norm of the day and the citizens themselves have absolutely nothing to say. They give you a little sweetness with Obamacare and marriage rights for all and then at the end of the day, they hit you with a hammer.
That sounds like the 1930's in Europe all over again.
Congratulations Supreme Court you did it again, bring America back to the time when Feudalism was the norm of the day and the citizens themselves have absolutely nothing to say. They give you a little sweetness with Obamacare and marriage rights for all and then at the end of the day, they hit you with a hammer.
4
Would be terrific if some of the justices had at least some science in their backgrounds- that would better enable them to "judge" important cases such as Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency. Again, we privatize profit while socializing pollution- a travesty. I trust the cost-benefit analyzes will show the magnitude of the true cost to society. We can and must demand better.
9
Maybe the last three wise rulings made us believe this Supreme Court was finally heading in the right direction - in the direction of people's aspirations. But Boy! That was a short run. They have gone back to being their own selves. This Court which has given us some unbelievable rulings ( Citizens' United ) has once again left us with incredulity. If Justice Roberts ruled for the ACA by " Purposivism " what happened here? The common-sense purpose of protecting our Planet should have been the goal of this ruling. Instead of ruling for planet's health, it decided to take the cost-benefit analysis for yes! the costs to the corporations and oligarchs to prevent polluting and degrading our Planet. That cost won over the the cost of Earth's health and all it's species. The Court should have been ruling for the EPA and protecting the Agency from these plunderers and Planet murderers. Instead EPA is held captive in litigations instead of the job they were purported to do. Justice Roberts - Purposivism?
4
The last three rulings before this one did not cost anything to corporations, and actually they probably have increased their businesses (Obamacare based on Romneycare is actually providing profits to the Insurance Industry, and Same Sex Marriages increase the size of the weddings industry), but curtailing pollution does not increase the profits of the corporations, so the efforts of the EPA to decrease pollution with Mercury, Sulfur, and many other pollutants was blocked.
5
Aftert this, few will have any patience with the electricity generating business when they whine they cannot make a profit as more and more people switch to home battery and solar power . I seem to recall the big gas companies(also coal users) were upset at the idea of electric lighting , at first. Electricity by Edicon made more money for coal than any amount of gasification and would have really made a mess had not Nikola Tesla showed that AC power could be sent via woires to homes many miles distant. Edison wanted to build a coal fired power plant every half mile or so, to sun his stupidly overheating and underperforming DC system.(Edison did give us the wonderful and modern electric chair, though!)
This only looks like a disaster now, because no one can yet see how it will reflect badly on the industry in future, and end up costing them. You can abuse and disrespect your enemies but if you do it to your customers, you won't be in business for long.
This only looks like a disaster now, because no one can yet see how it will reflect badly on the industry in future, and end up costing them. You can abuse and disrespect your enemies but if you do it to your customers, you won't be in business for long.
2
Did justice Roberts suddenly take a common sense pill or what? One day he constructs the most uncommon reasoning in support of obamacare and the next he opposes EPAs outrageous regulations. The honorable justice needs some serious therapy.
4
Why are you defending the crowd that wants you to breathe dirty air just so it can make a buck?
The five Republican Justices speak about the cost? What is the cost of a child's life, or an adult? Republicans always place corporations over people.
4
Not to trivialize social issues which are of great importance to many people, but the way I see the right-wing corporatists who have bought the US gov't and courts is that they'll be happy as clams to dole out crumbs of personal freedoms in exchange for keeping a firm grip on what they see as the Big Issues. In other words, give folks all the sex and drugs they want, but keep their profits from fossil-fuel and fossil-attitude industries rolling in -until, of course, we're all goners. Smoke what you want, marry anybody you want, but keep out of the way of coal and oil. That's the deal they offer.
5
No surprise here. Kennedy and Roberts wrestled with their consciences -- and won. Also no surprise that Scalia wrote the opinion. These judges are enemies of the planet.
2
A recent Bloomberg analysis is totally convincing to me in establishing CO2 as the major cause of climate change. And recently I have been reading a history of the Schiylkill river. In the 19th century, when the city of Philadelphia moved to ban the wholesale dumping of offal, sewage and industrial waste, big business responded by saying how many jobs could be endangered by this "dubious experiment." POTUS and Big Coal are on the wrong side of history.
1
This would be a lot more simple if the utility industry would voluntarily do the right thing and curb emissions they know are harmful to the public -- including their friends and family. Denial, obfuscation and foot dragging is great for the lawyers, but not the rest of us.
1
The coal industry's profits are more important than you health, or the health of your children and grandchildren.
How do you estimate the cost benefit of a healthier population that does not need expensive medicines in order to breath?
What we need is another Love Canal, or a Beijing type air day, for people to get mad enough to put an end to big coal.
How do you estimate the cost benefit of a healthier population that does not need expensive medicines in order to breath?
What we need is another Love Canal, or a Beijing type air day, for people to get mad enough to put an end to big coal.
3
Once the cost-benefit analysis is completed, EPA will be able to show the public health costs are greater by not protecting; I don't think that the "victors" in this decision will be satisfied, but I'm imagining that the rule will be on more solid ground considering the public health benefits and rational economic costs when weighed against each other. But be prepared for the wild economic loss scenarios from unproven economic models, rather, disproven economic models.
3
It sounds as if this case was one of Industry Interests over the Public Interest and the refusal to pay the costs involved to ensure the environmental and human costs of Industry output are not put at risk or potential harm.
Some call such "The Cost of doing Business" and if anything it is Business who should be providing the Court with real LEGITIMATE costs to them whilst the EPA provide the Costs to everyone else of Industry NOT complying.
Is ANYBODY insane enough to actually believe INDUSTRY estimates of 9.6 BILLION in costs for just 6 MILLION in Benefits is in any way valid or fair and not suspect?
Once again, as ever America shows clearly how it favors Profits before People and Business before Beings.
The Heartless over The Human.
Some call such "The Cost of doing Business" and if anything it is Business who should be providing the Court with real LEGITIMATE costs to them whilst the EPA provide the Costs to everyone else of Industry NOT complying.
Is ANYBODY insane enough to actually believe INDUSTRY estimates of 9.6 BILLION in costs for just 6 MILLION in Benefits is in any way valid or fair and not suspect?
Once again, as ever America shows clearly how it favors Profits before People and Business before Beings.
The Heartless over The Human.
1
So when it comes to the air we breathe, it's a cost benefit analysis. But when it comes to voter ID laws, the fact that it happens one tenth of one percent of the times is irrelevent. Oh I forgot, corporations are people who don't breathe.
6
I don't know what all you Gloomy Gus's and Nervius Nellies are worried about. Everyone who gets sick has access to Obamacare. That'll tide us over until the powers-that-be have completely destroyed the planet. Sorry future children and grandchildren it was just too expensive to worry about it. You're on your own.
2
Great Stuff, Mr Scalia...let's do a quick recap: you dislike same sex marriage that evolves purely out of love and you can't stand the thought that the poor and most needy would have equal access to health care ...you do however like: contaminating the earths atmosphere with pollutants and killing inmates with a nasty sedative...
Seems kind of bizarre wherever you might fall on the collective issues... somehow though it just seems far too predictable...and scary when it comes from SCOTUS.
Scalia, it appears, has the compassion and soul of a Smiling Cobra.
Seems kind of bizarre wherever you might fall on the collective issues... somehow though it just seems far too predictable...and scary when it comes from SCOTUS.
Scalia, it appears, has the compassion and soul of a Smiling Cobra.
2
Don't insult the Cobra.
2
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,
I think it is unfair to ask the EPA, or for that matter, any government agency, to consider economic analysis in regulation. It is their business to set a lofty goal and work with industry to achieve it. I present two observations from my 35 years in engineering: 1) osmotic desalination, and; 2) diesel engine emissions.
In the former case, the naysayers have eaten their words as desalinated water costs only 38% more than natural water. In the later case, diesel engine improvements encouraged GE to invent a diesel locomotive that even the Germans buy from us because they can't do build it themselves.
Lastly, I must point out the limits of economic analysis. We’re not good at it. There I said it. Engineers don’t have all the answers. A May 2015 article in Hydrocarbon Processing put a harsh light on this reality (pg. 27-28):
“A recent Ernest & Young survey investigated 365 oil and gas megaprojects, where 64% were identified as running over budget, and 73% as behind schedule.”
If engineers constructing these facilities can’t predict project costs makes you think a government regulator can do it?
My two themes may seem divergent but they are not. The more plants we design and build, and operate, the more the technology is optimized. Asking the EPA to do a cost benefit analysis is a little like asking a farmer to predict his corn yield. If you or I could do that we wouldn’t need to work for a living!
I think it is unfair to ask the EPA, or for that matter, any government agency, to consider economic analysis in regulation. It is their business to set a lofty goal and work with industry to achieve it. I present two observations from my 35 years in engineering: 1) osmotic desalination, and; 2) diesel engine emissions.
In the former case, the naysayers have eaten their words as desalinated water costs only 38% more than natural water. In the later case, diesel engine improvements encouraged GE to invent a diesel locomotive that even the Germans buy from us because they can't do build it themselves.
Lastly, I must point out the limits of economic analysis. We’re not good at it. There I said it. Engineers don’t have all the answers. A May 2015 article in Hydrocarbon Processing put a harsh light on this reality (pg. 27-28):
“A recent Ernest & Young survey investigated 365 oil and gas megaprojects, where 64% were identified as running over budget, and 73% as behind schedule.”
If engineers constructing these facilities can’t predict project costs makes you think a government regulator can do it?
My two themes may seem divergent but they are not. The more plants we design and build, and operate, the more the technology is optimized. Asking the EPA to do a cost benefit analysis is a little like asking a farmer to predict his corn yield. If you or I could do that we wouldn’t need to work for a living!
1
This case illustrates the folly of trying to fight greenhouse gas build up by regulation. The process depends or the wisdom of the regulators who after all human and thus prone to err to identify the relevant factors and choose the best method to reach the goal. They will inevitably get it wrong at some level. Additionally, rule making process is so narrow and detailed as to limit the efforts to control green house emissions to just a few easily regulated sectors such as truck, cars or power plants, leaving industrial processes and building hearing unaffected.
A simpler approach is to simply impose a tax on greenhouse emissions by taxing fossil fuels on their carbon tax, make it revenue neutral refunding the money to offset the adverse effects, especially on the working class which spends most of its income on rent, heating, transportation, and food all of which require fossil fuel inputs. Add an auxiliary carbon content tax to prevent export of manufacturing overseas. Not only would such a system be much simpler to administer, but it could easily be tweaked to remedy the inevitable shortcomings. That way every affected individual or company can chart its own course. Yep, there will be errors, but the individual mistakes will have limited impact and can be corrected.
A simpler approach is to simply impose a tax on greenhouse emissions by taxing fossil fuels on their carbon tax, make it revenue neutral refunding the money to offset the adverse effects, especially on the working class which spends most of its income on rent, heating, transportation, and food all of which require fossil fuel inputs. Add an auxiliary carbon content tax to prevent export of manufacturing overseas. Not only would such a system be much simpler to administer, but it could easily be tweaked to remedy the inevitable shortcomings. That way every affected individual or company can chart its own course. Yep, there will be errors, but the individual mistakes will have limited impact and can be corrected.
14
Agreed, though i think personal bias and lack of at least congressional over-site are a bigger problem than mistakes. The EPA is accountable to no one , there are no checks and balances and that should scare the you know what out of people.
More to your tax idea, I have an alternative idea which may or may not garner any support in this paper but, what if you used a big chunk of the carbon tax to offset a reduction to zero in capital gains for investments into clean energy. Let the entrepreneurs create solutions
More to your tax idea, I have an alternative idea which may or may not garner any support in this paper but, what if you used a big chunk of the carbon tax to offset a reduction to zero in capital gains for investments into clean energy. Let the entrepreneurs create solutions
Good luck with getting a carbon tax imposed even if revenue neutral. The R/TP has already condemned that also.
1
How long should we wait for this to happen? *cough*
Ten years? *cough cough*
Twenty? *hack! wheeze...*
(Hey, why is this water rising up around my ankles? And where did all these dead polar bears come from?)
Ten years? *cough cough*
Twenty? *hack! wheeze...*
(Hey, why is this water rising up around my ankles? And where did all these dead polar bears come from?)
2
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-06-10/news/0406100202_1_air-pollut...
Take a look at this and other things on the same page on google about the great NE blackout a few years back. Even NYCity recorded a cleansing of the atmosphere, and this is without traffic stopping!
Take a look at this and other things on the same page on google about the great NE blackout a few years back. Even NYCity recorded a cleansing of the atmosphere, and this is without traffic stopping!
1
Do you think the Supremes would vote differently if they lived in this pollution?
3
They do, but they're very old and know they'll be dead soon anyway.
1
The article quotes Scalia: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”
So how did the wise one come up with this fuzzy "billions of dollars"? Did he do a cost/benefit analysis that backs up this "fact"? If so, will he please share it with us? No? I didn't think so. Once again SCOTUS comes up with subjective rationalization to justify a decision that protects corporate interests.
So how did the wise one come up with this fuzzy "billions of dollars"? Did he do a cost/benefit analysis that backs up this "fact"? If so, will he please share it with us? No? I didn't think so. Once again SCOTUS comes up with subjective rationalization to justify a decision that protects corporate interests.
7
Same way the EPA came up with their fuzzy billions.
The cost and benefit figures were in the record from the Court below.
No Rob, Mercury is poisonous and causes multiple damage to the body, especially to the brain. Would like your family to be test subjects!
4
I don't understand cost benefit analysis [CBA].
Cost to whom. Benefit to whom.
The technology exists to limit missions.
The toxic effects of mercury and other pollutants are known.
The benefits go to the power companies because installing devices to limit emissions costs the power companies money.
The costs are shifted from the polluters to the those who breathe polluted air and drink polluted water.
And the 5 conservative justices don't care.
I am not surprised at Scalia, Thomas, Alito but I thought Roberts and Kennedy had some principles and decency.
Cost to whom. Benefit to whom.
The technology exists to limit missions.
The toxic effects of mercury and other pollutants are known.
The benefits go to the power companies because installing devices to limit emissions costs the power companies money.
The costs are shifted from the polluters to the those who breathe polluted air and drink polluted water.
And the 5 conservative justices don't care.
I am not surprised at Scalia, Thomas, Alito but I thought Roberts and Kennedy had some principles and decency.
4
Cost over human health and welfare. And that's one of the reasons why our country has no right to talk human rights with any other country. SCOTUS gave us two and kept one for the Conservative corporate interests. So, now we have marriage equality - Good! And now, we have healthcare - Good. And now, they gave us unbreathable air for which they gave us healthcare to attempt to deter the effects of breathing that air because of the COST to do otherwise. SCOTUS works in strange ways. COST over health! I guess we'll have to hope that in the corporate conscience, they think to support the limitations of pollutants they spew into our air by funding the exploration of preventing them. But that will cost 'em! Corporation greed rules!
2
As someone who, quite accidentally, discovered extremely high blood mercury levels (and had it drop to zero simply by drinking purified water), I take exception with Scala's reasoning that the high costs result in 'a few dollars' in health savings. Since testing for mercury is both expensive and not routine, the extent of this neurotoxin in the population is unknown. But it is a direct result of the burning of coal, which releases it chemically to fall back to Earth in the rain, whereupon it works its way up the food chain and is also present in the water supply. This has not had as much coverage as CO2, but it alone is reason for much tighter emission controls. If, through testing, people understood that they were being poisoned as I was, there would be an outcry, but it remains unknown to most. This is a hugely disappointing decision on so many levels.
2
As an economist, Scalia really irritates me. Economics is the study of how we use resources to benefit our selves. This includes all costs, current and future, weighed against all benefits. By no means are the value of all costs or benefits weighted strictly in prices. First, many benefits can not be traded in the market, hence no price. Yet these benefits, and costs, that are not in the market, or external, must be weighed somehow. For the likes of Scalia they will always be able, like most right wingers, to discount the benefits of pollution reduction, while giving full credit to the profits of these business. After the marriage ruling, one of the republican presidential candidates said the supreme court is not above god. I don't know about that, but I do know that they are not above nature. If they don't see that then we are all doomed. The "cost" of man made global warming will dwarf the profits of coal.
2
Cost to clean up polluting power plants should be paid by those companies owning the power plants. They can be written off as expenses. However the costs that are probably not calculated are the costs to individuals, the environment, health insurance companies, workplaces, from the detrimental effects of the pollution that these plants are spewing out. A better way to go would be to have more solar/wind power on each house with battery back up. Of course someone will say what about all those power plant jobs, well those folks could find work manufacturing, installing and maintaining solar power or wind power. Wake up America or die a slow agonizing death from not being able to breathe or have some debilitating illness like cancer.
1
Another comment by someone who thinks money grows on trees or is magically generated by companies with no impact on users.
To kwb:
Just allow me to feed you the pollutants you want to feed others, then we talk, if your brain still is able to produce speech.
Just allow me to feed you the pollutants you want to feed others, then we talk, if your brain still is able to produce speech.
2
Did Anyone actually read the briefs in this Case? This case was actually about how to regulate power Plants. The EPA has not lost the authority to regulate them, In fact, Congress setup the HAP program specifically to regulate them within the Clean Air Act. The EPA was actually trying to do an END RUN around the law that congress had setup. PLEASE. Actually read the briefs and Don't go by 6 paragraph article to the left. This was a very narrow ruling based on Administrative Law.
The Clean Air Act has been on the books since 1990. And Now 25 Years Later, the EPA determined they had the authority to regulate all Emissions from power plants under this program as well as the HAP program? That takes some real creative writing in Administrative Law. Even the SG had to admit the EPA has never construed this part of the Clean Air Act this way.
If you want the law Changed, Goto congress! Don't let some agency change it for their own purpose! Who knows, you might end up on the other side of some Agency Action that you disagree with! See: Sackett V EPA.
The Clean Air Act has been on the books since 1990. And Now 25 Years Later, the EPA determined they had the authority to regulate all Emissions from power plants under this program as well as the HAP program? That takes some real creative writing in Administrative Law. Even the SG had to admit the EPA has never construed this part of the Clean Air Act this way.
If you want the law Changed, Goto congress! Don't let some agency change it for their own purpose! Who knows, you might end up on the other side of some Agency Action that you disagree with! See: Sackett V EPA.
5
If they were considering cost when they polluted, then I would say touché, but they are not. So, why would it work the other way around? Charge the companies for recycling and public correction of problem before they pollute. We have all the facts. This is not in dispute. This is just one more example of the courts being packed by Republicans doing business with business.
The cynic in me says that today's decisions were announced on the last day because those in the majority figured we would still be high-fiving Thursday and Friday's decisions and overlook inhumane punishment and a license to foul the air. Good thing we have the ACA -- we're going to need the extra healthcare after a lifetime of breathing toxic air.
1
How do the "Justices" hope to put a dollar price on clean air, clean water, mercury poisoning of fish, global climate change from burning fossil fuels, asthma, and lung cancer? The "cost-benefit analysis" argument is nothing more than a smokescreen (pun intended) for the politically and personally held beliefs of the conservative majority of the court, who simply refuse to believe anything that doesn't accord with their very limited (here and now only) world views.
1
The Supreme Court has NOT voided the rule. It has NOT blocked mercury protections. It has not blocked anything. This suit was about a narrow--myopic, even--focus on when exactly EPA took costs into account. In fact, EPA considered costs many times throughout the process of rule-making--simply not in deciding to take up the subject of regulating mercury, chromium, acid gases, and other poisons.
Another inconvenient fact: already 70% of plants have installed mercury "scrubbers"--at a fraction of the cost they predicted. We know, because that's what they reported to their own shareholders.
The bad part is that now the door is open for polluters to go back to DC circuit to sue to block the rules. That's the scary one.
Another inconvenient fact: already 70% of plants have installed mercury "scrubbers"--at a fraction of the cost they predicted. We know, because that's what they reported to their own shareholders.
The bad part is that now the door is open for polluters to go back to DC circuit to sue to block the rules. That's the scary one.
1
I find it interesting that in the week ending the Times and many so called liberal commentators have gushed about Justice Kennedy has made his mark in history with the gay rights decision, that Chief Justice Roberts is the paragon of judicial modesty and enlightenment as reflected in his ACA decision, that the Court Republican all male appointees are moving leftward in their decision making, etc., etc. All this is poppycock! Without going into an examination of these court decisions which space does not permit, it is apparent that the Supreme Court is ideologically divided 5-4 on most important critical decisions with the "activist" reactionary majority pursuing its right-wing agenda in the name of the "rule of law" and constitutional interpretation. This agenda favors Big Business over the Consumer, a powerful rich minority over the what remains of the middle class and the poor, whites over minorities, contempt for Congress and the Executive Branch, and it manipulates the desired results in a variety of ways which are not obvious to the general public who are not lawyers.
1
Of course, Corporate Persons have no need of clean air or clean water, and their Republican toadies mechanically respond to the call of the Morlochs to oppose anything that will damage the bottom line. Mercury is one of most toxic substances on Earth, but not to Corporate Persons who see it as just another commodity to trade. But they are trading with death and suffering for common folks on the balance sheet.
4
If one stops to consider that the costs tomorrow will only be higher and that the peril to the biosphere is becoming apparent then this decision will be held to have been a foolish support of profit at the expense of lives and that is how it has always been: humanity crucified on the altar of the bottom line.
8
Once again, Roberts, Kennedy and the three stooges do the bidding of their corporate masters, at the expense of common sense, and the common good. Disgusting.
8
Why is the supreme Court even voting on this matter, or the other matters they have tackled in the past week. I think people have forgotten or perhaps never realized, the supreme court is there to interpret the Constitution into law nothing more. All these cases are not in there jurisdiction, and them ruling on these cases is conflicting to a true republic.
1
It is too bad that this article spent so much time giving voice to anti-climate sentiment instead of talking about the catastrophic effects this will have on our environment. Thankfully the LATIMES was doing their job by including important information such as:
Mercury is highly toxic in the air and the water, and it builds up through the food chain. It is particularly dangerous for a pregnant woman and her developing baby. Other toxic pollutants are believed to trigger asthma attacks. AND
The EPA called this a false comparison (regarding the $9billion vs $6 billion costs vs benefits). The agency said the rules would save 11,000 lives per year. And if all the impact of all the hazardous pollutants were considered, the EPA said the cleaner air would yield public health benefits of more than $37 billion a year.
AND
The so-called "mercury and air toxins" rule has been 25 years in the making. Congress in 1990 strengthened the Clean Air Act and told the EPA to identify the major sources for more than 180 hazardous air pollutants, including mercury and arsenic. And once the agency decided coal and oil-fired power plants were a major source of these pollutants, the EPA was told to adopt regulations that were "appropriate and necessary" to limit these emissions.
Mercury is highly toxic in the air and the water, and it builds up through the food chain. It is particularly dangerous for a pregnant woman and her developing baby. Other toxic pollutants are believed to trigger asthma attacks. AND
The EPA called this a false comparison (regarding the $9billion vs $6 billion costs vs benefits). The agency said the rules would save 11,000 lives per year. And if all the impact of all the hazardous pollutants were considered, the EPA said the cleaner air would yield public health benefits of more than $37 billion a year.
AND
The so-called "mercury and air toxins" rule has been 25 years in the making. Congress in 1990 strengthened the Clean Air Act and told the EPA to identify the major sources for more than 180 hazardous air pollutants, including mercury and arsenic. And once the agency decided coal and oil-fired power plants were a major source of these pollutants, the EPA was told to adopt regulations that were "appropriate and necessary" to limit these emissions.
6
Cheers from the Party that is constantly screaming about the "unfunded liabilities" in SS, but wants a specific cost/benefit analysis on the potential harm of allowing corporations to continue releasing known carcinogens into our air and water. Even Nixon must be rolling over in his grave.
3
If the body of your story is accurate, your headline and lead paragraph seriously oversell the story. Your headline and lead paragraph both say that the Court "blocked" the EPA's regulations. But in your seventh paragraph, you state that "Industries will be expected to comply with the current rule until a revised one is issued."
If the latter statement is accurate, then nothing was blocked at all.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
If the latter statement is accurate, then nothing was blocked at all.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
3
My doctor told me I had a life-threatening illness that could probably be cured with a certain medicine. The medicine was expensive, though, so I said forget it.
6
The analyses of the patterns of this Court’s decisions that find any unpredictability, or that it is not all based on establishment ideology, are either blind or disingenuous or worse. Careful looking shows that whenever a decision would interfere with substantial profits for any industry the four ultra-right wing justices and their far right wing colleague (Kennedy) vote in favor of the industry. This decision obviously fits that crucial pattern.
The seeming liberal decisions by Kennedy and Roberts usually benefit some large profit-making companies, such as the health insurance companies in the decision on the ACA. With perhaps a few rare exceptions, their other “deviations” from conservative philosophy really do not substantially affect any industry’s profits. These five justices are not really conservative in the usual sense of that word, but are rather supporters of corporate privilege and profit. Even the clownish Scalia will depart from his avowedly anti-democratic views when big profits are at stake.
Among the deviations also include recognition by Roberts that a Supreme Court that is so obviously one-sidedly in favor of corporate profits or privilege will lose its credibility, a necessity to maintaining even a sliver of legitimacy in this country. Anyone who thinks that any of these five justices really give much weight to democracy, or even the rule of law, are respectfully referred to Citizens United and Hobby Lobby.
The seeming liberal decisions by Kennedy and Roberts usually benefit some large profit-making companies, such as the health insurance companies in the decision on the ACA. With perhaps a few rare exceptions, their other “deviations” from conservative philosophy really do not substantially affect any industry’s profits. These five justices are not really conservative in the usual sense of that word, but are rather supporters of corporate privilege and profit. Even the clownish Scalia will depart from his avowedly anti-democratic views when big profits are at stake.
Among the deviations also include recognition by Roberts that a Supreme Court that is so obviously one-sidedly in favor of corporate profits or privilege will lose its credibility, a necessity to maintaining even a sliver of legitimacy in this country. Anyone who thinks that any of these five justices really give much weight to democracy, or even the rule of law, are respectfully referred to Citizens United and Hobby Lobby.
6
Interesting that the Times quotes Justice Scalia in this case, "Statutory context supports this reading." He just told us, days ago, that the Court couldn't rely on "statutory context" to uphold subsidies in the Affordable Care Act! Of course, in this case, the Clean Air Act has been essentially unchanged since the 1990 amendments, so how the "context" requires a change now is beyond me.
7
In view of the recent Netherlands decision, this seems a bit stupid, but it just means the EPA has to sharpen it's pencil and make the case for the costs. And don't forget the costs of all the extreme weather events which have already occurred, and people killed/Katrina/Sandy/Etc.
4
It seems premature to say exactly what this ruling means in the long term because the Court is still saying the EPA can determine the cost/benefit analysis, just do one and then regulate. The Court also did not remove CO2 from the list of pollutants. Once this analysis is done the industry may be in more trouble than they imagined. The tough call is putting a cost of the human health harm done. What is a life worth? What is a cancer diagnosis worth?
Also the Obama moves against CO2 are still in effect as well as very low gas prices, declining solar and wind costs, and increasing opportunities for energy efficiency. With all of that coal burning will decline at any rate. Plus lots of state regulations are limiting coal burning (especially in California).
I understand the concern from the environmentalist, but all is not lost just yet.
Also the Obama moves against CO2 are still in effect as well as very low gas prices, declining solar and wind costs, and increasing opportunities for energy efficiency. With all of that coal burning will decline at any rate. Plus lots of state regulations are limiting coal burning (especially in California).
I understand the concern from the environmentalist, but all is not lost just yet.
2
Right now, as you sit here reading this article, your are breathing in air that contains unnatural levels of toxins that include mercury, lead, and other carcinogens that are emitted from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. These toxins enter your body constantly; 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for your lifetime.
As you go to lunch, know that you are eating food that has been grown in soil that has been sprayed by petrochemicals, sprayed by insecticides that are known carcinogens, and you ingest all of these things every single day if you eat commercially-raised, non-organic food.
Your water? Varying levels of these carcinogens occur in our drinking water, to levels that can get horribly high, as in the case when fly ash, oil, etc., gets dumped "accidentally" into our rivers and streams.
If you think this issue only effects people "over there", you are absolutely and perfectly wrong. It effects all of us, every single day.
That there isn't a full-throated "ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!" cry from we, the American People, on this issue is a direct bi-product of the billions of dollars that the Big Carbon industries has spent controlling the dialogue, hiding the truth, buying our justices and representatives, stacking the EPA with future and former industry hacks, and keeping us arguing against one another as they continue to make billions and billions in private wealth at the expense of our collective health.
As you go to lunch, know that you are eating food that has been grown in soil that has been sprayed by petrochemicals, sprayed by insecticides that are known carcinogens, and you ingest all of these things every single day if you eat commercially-raised, non-organic food.
Your water? Varying levels of these carcinogens occur in our drinking water, to levels that can get horribly high, as in the case when fly ash, oil, etc., gets dumped "accidentally" into our rivers and streams.
If you think this issue only effects people "over there", you are absolutely and perfectly wrong. It effects all of us, every single day.
That there isn't a full-throated "ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!" cry from we, the American People, on this issue is a direct bi-product of the billions of dollars that the Big Carbon industries has spent controlling the dialogue, hiding the truth, buying our justices and representatives, stacking the EPA with future and former industry hacks, and keeping us arguing against one another as they continue to make billions and billions in private wealth at the expense of our collective health.
6
It's time to move away from dirty energy and the costs of containing its toxins, and move to clean energy technologies. Shut down those power plants now!
4
So in the minds of Kennedy and Roberts (the only potentially free thinking members of the court), upholding the ACA and preserving expanded healthcare access gave them the supposed justification to degrade public health with this ruling? Now that it's covered, who cares about sulfur-induced respiratory distress or cancer from heavy metal-contaminated drinking water?
3
Lets do a cost vs benefit. Breathing $1000 for for gas mask and training, $100/year for filters. Benefit to Utility, $0 profit. Therefore cost outweighs benefits.
4
The EPA deserved this defeat. The EPA NOPR that was originally propounded a few years ago admitted that U.S. coal fired plants emitted only 29 of 8,300 tons of mercury discharged annually around the world, mostly from volcanoes and forest fires. Of that, 500 to 900 tons were discharged from oil and coal fired power plants globally. Most of the mercury discharged is emitted by Chinese coal fired units. The EPA was mandating that U.S. plants reduce down to 6 tons of mercury per year to protect subsistence fisherman, notwithstanding all of the mercury we consume from commercial fishing. To call it a travesty is being kind. it was a joke and a blatant attack on coal mining and coal burning utilities. They lost for the right reason: no basis for the rules; no basis for the attack.
22
When the whole NE was in a black out because of a power plant failure, air samples were taken by researchers at the University of Md. They found that the air cleared by 50%. Of course, traffic continued as usual.
5
Niles,
An interesting reading of the facts in the article. The court ruled that the cost-benefit had to precede the finding of need, rather in the final setting of the rule. The rule was NOT set aside by the Court. Rather they required the cost-benefit before the need to write a rule was established. The cost-benefit does already support this particular EPA rule and it will continue to do so after this Supreme Court ruling.
By the way, many regulations work this way. Take the case of Dumping. Even after Dumping is established ( we are now talking international trade), you have to show "significant - it is defined" damage to US markets or there is no case, even though there is dumping.
To me it makes obvious sense to first establish that there is a problem worth studying, before doing the cost-benefit analysis, but explaining science and technology to the Supreme Court has always been a challenge.
An interesting reading of the facts in the article. The court ruled that the cost-benefit had to precede the finding of need, rather in the final setting of the rule. The rule was NOT set aside by the Court. Rather they required the cost-benefit before the need to write a rule was established. The cost-benefit does already support this particular EPA rule and it will continue to do so after this Supreme Court ruling.
By the way, many regulations work this way. Take the case of Dumping. Even after Dumping is established ( we are now talking international trade), you have to show "significant - it is defined" damage to US markets or there is no case, even though there is dumping.
To me it makes obvious sense to first establish that there is a problem worth studying, before doing the cost-benefit analysis, but explaining science and technology to the Supreme Court has always been a challenge.
1
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-06-10/news/0406100202_1_air-pollut...
THis is basically bologna.
THis is basically bologna.
Thoughts:
In Oregon most of our power comes from the Bonneville Dam. It's renewable, as long as we get rain. The dam is paid for, even 'tho my bills do rise due to "increasing costs".
Our prevailing winds in my corner of the state are from the west, northwest and southwest. We've been know to get sand from storms in the Gobi Desert. Still, I'm grateful that the far too many coal-fired power plants are way to to my east...
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith
In Oregon most of our power comes from the Bonneville Dam. It's renewable, as long as we get rain. The dam is paid for, even 'tho my bills do rise due to "increasing costs".
Our prevailing winds in my corner of the state are from the west, northwest and southwest. We've been know to get sand from storms in the Gobi Desert. Still, I'm grateful that the far too many coal-fired power plants are way to to my east...
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith
8
Guess we'll just put climate change and global depletion on hold and let children suffer irreparable lung damage while we sit around and talk about it and do some calculations so big industry is satisfied their pockets are full enough. What time do they think we have?
6
It is interesting to compare Kagan's dissenting opinion, which is very clearly and plainly written, with Thomas's concurrence, which is not so much a concurrence as a rather tortured philosophical argument (in unvarnished legalese) that the EPA has no authority to regulate these emissions at all.
The majority opinion is questionable in that it accepts the absurd plaintiffs' claim of only $6 million dollars per year (also referred to as "a few" dollars, which is I'm sure common practice by the average US citizen--pocket change, really) in benefits without question, and dismisses the EPA's benefit analysis because it was not the very first thing they undertook. As if agencies should be undertaking random cost-benefit analyses without any intent to act on them. Or is it the opinion of the majority that undertaking a cost-benefit analysis implies an intention to regulate, which this decision proscribes? That would be a neat little catch-22 for polluters.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pd
The majority opinion is questionable in that it accepts the absurd plaintiffs' claim of only $6 million dollars per year (also referred to as "a few" dollars, which is I'm sure common practice by the average US citizen--pocket change, really) in benefits without question, and dismisses the EPA's benefit analysis because it was not the very first thing they undertook. As if agencies should be undertaking random cost-benefit analyses without any intent to act on them. Or is it the opinion of the majority that undertaking a cost-benefit analysis implies an intention to regulate, which this decision proscribes? That would be a neat little catch-22 for polluters.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pd
3
Sure a CBA should be done. The effects to the environment won't change now will they?
1
This is a Pyrrhic Victory for the Republicans, as these regulations will be in place for the good few years of the new regulation being put into place (a few years will be required in order to conduct the extensive studies that the decision requires). Then, a new regulation will come out and it will presumably be virtually the same as the previous one, as per court decree. Unless, of course, Rick Perry becomes president.
3
Interesting how the Court is worried about the excessive cost of actions that could save lives in EPA decision, but not worried about the excessive cost required to take lives in this decisions.
9
If the Supreme Court thinks the cost is too high, I hope they get a chance to witness devastating the costs of climate change catastrophes, in lives, land, air, property, and extinctions. "Entrepreneurs" are not godly enough to turn this around. Resources are not infinite. We cannot "build" or "invent" our way out of this already collapsing planet. So gays get to marry. That's the bone that was tossed, while the darker agenda is now showing its face.
9
I am normally an ardent tree-hugger but something about the government's position here makes no sense.
One would think that if you were going to regulate "X" you might first determine the cost versus benefit of doing so regardless of how obvious the benefits might be to most of us. Even the most pro forma analysis would seem a prudent step given our current political climate.
Especially puzzling is that apparently AFTER deciding to regulate "X", the EPA THEN does a cost-benefit analysis of any regulations it might impose.
One would think that if you were going to regulate "X" you might first determine the cost versus benefit of doing so regardless of how obvious the benefits might be to most of us. Even the most pro forma analysis would seem a prudent step given our current political climate.
Especially puzzling is that apparently AFTER deciding to regulate "X", the EPA THEN does a cost-benefit analysis of any regulations it might impose.
5
The decision was to regulate, because of the human health impact, not what the appropriate regulation would be. They did a cost benefit analysis before deciding on what the regulations should look like.
Why would you spend time and money on a cost analysis for something you haven't decided you are even interested in regulating in the first place?
It is SCOTUS that makes no common sense.
Why would you spend time and money on a cost analysis for something you haven't decided you are even interested in regulating in the first place?
It is SCOTUS that makes no common sense.
1
Cormac, the article clearly states "But the agency added that it had done so later in setting emissions standards" after it had decided to regulated. Furthermore, if the NYT is correct, the agency decided "that, in any event, the benefits far outweighed the costs." While this is almost certainly true, to assume it is to beg the question, "Should we regulate "X"?"
Perhaps the EPA should have put the horse before the cart?
Perhaps the EPA should have put the horse before the cart?
Two steps forward, two steps back... hard to see how this country will make any progress at this rate.
3
Please note, that no one in the minority was found throwing all their toys out of the crib in a Scalia-style fit of pique at losing. Everything Scalia says and does is tainted by his inescapable childishness in wanting what he wants and being unwilling to consider the possibility that he might not always get it. Even in this case, where he might actually have a point - one that the E.P.A. will easily satisfy, by the way, and should have done from the start - it's hard to take him seriously.
11
How about the "punishing costs" to everybody's lungs?
14
Everyone of us produces the resulting pollution multiplied by by all of us on this planet. Imagine doubling the population and good luck.
2
One would be hard pressed to identify a single individual that died as a result of power plant emissions. On the other hand finding folk that have died as a result of loss of power during stressful summer heat, or winter cold would be much easier. EPA "studies" I find are biased and make unsubstantiated assumptions. Price old folk out of the electric market in summer heat and deaths will rise, and I’m quite sure the EPA has not included this rather obvious fact in their “studies”.
16
hmmm ... haven't done your homework I see. Yes, people are being sickened and killed by emissions. A simple search turned this up in seconds:
http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-health_effects_from_US_power_plant_emissions
"A 2010 study by the Clean Air Task Force estimated that air pollution from coal-fired power plants accounts for more than 13,000 premature deaths, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost workdays in the U.S. each year. The total monetary cost of these health impacts is over $100 billion annually."
http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-health_effects_from_US_power_plant_emissions
"A 2010 study by the Clean Air Task Force estimated that air pollution from coal-fired power plants accounts for more than 13,000 premature deaths, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost workdays in the U.S. each year. The total monetary cost of these health impacts is over $100 billion annually."
10
so if no one dies, no harm is done?
1
The thing about climate change is that it doesn't hit anybody in the same way, and it may not kill anybody instantly but over the long term we will all be harmed. It is sad to see that everybody is putting their well-being ahead of the world's. Ask people on slowly flooding Pacific islands if climate change has ever harmed anybody! Global warming may not make a difference for you living in hot Nevada, but it certainly does to pretty much 90% of the rest of the world!
Scalia's a textualist except when it doesn't suit his desired outcome, then "statutory context" matters in interpreting the law.
7
This ruling was THE opportunity to make a big dent in the U.S. pollution machine and show the world we are serious about climate change. The $9+B price tag is the cumulative costs of what should have been paid all along, it's not new investment. We can recycle all of the plastic grocery bags we want until the sun hazes over, but we will never come close to making this level of change individually. A sad day for all species in the world.
9
Does anyone else see the irony of the Roman Catholic justices thumbing their noses at their Pope?
15
I understand that doing the cost benefit analysis makes sense but I've noticed that these analyses, when done, if they favor the regulations being passed are usually ignored. However, I'd like to know how many of these utilities will step up and offer to pay the medical bills for the people that are affected in an adverse way by these chemicals and their emissions. How many of these CEOs live nearby or drink the water that gets polluted or play in the dirt that is contaminated? It's not an easy answer if profits are your only goal. If being environmentally safe is part of your goals you can create some jobs for people to monitor the situation, for others to look into better ways to deliver power, etc.
I think that the yes/no model is not serving anyone. We all share the same planet. Shouldn't keeping it livable be part of the business model for every business? Or don't they need humans to survive?
I think that the yes/no model is not serving anyone. We all share the same planet. Shouldn't keeping it livable be part of the business model for every business? Or don't they need humans to survive?
6
As biased as these judges are they aren't idiots. They know where their bread is buttered and they have a good idea of the true costso f this type of pollution. The medical costs alone for people dealing with environmental pollution has to far exceed any punitive cost on these industries. The problem is that the people who will suffer from this are not a concern of these utilities.
It's fine. It will just give much more momentum to the Clean Energy cause. I can't wait until Solar, Wind, and Ocean technologies completely replace these filthy industries and their owners are left with worthless stock.
For the short term. surrounding states can sue the states protecting these industries, just as what took place with acid rain.
It's fine. It will just give much more momentum to the Clean Energy cause. I can't wait until Solar, Wind, and Ocean technologies completely replace these filthy industries and their owners are left with worthless stock.
For the short term. surrounding states can sue the states protecting these industries, just as what took place with acid rain.
13
Scalia" “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.' coal emissions causing only a 'few dollars in health/environmental' problems? How idiotic can one get. Congratulations Mr. Scalia, you have now cemented your legacy as the worst, most detrimental SC Justice of at least the last 100 years. We can only hope and pray that you step down sooner rather than later.
30
Why should the Environmental Protection Agency have to prove economic efficiency before it decides whether poisons should even be regulated? Determining whether something is dangerous and needs to be regulated needs to come before the process of crafting regulations, and you can't do a cost-benefit analysis with regulations that don't exist!
Most of the time, each side in a divided Supreme Court has a rational argument for its position. But there's not reason behind a decision like this. The decision has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and everything to do with partisan politics. Forcing federal agencies to regulate backwards and do nothing that would cost money is the antithesis of good government.
That seems to be the aim of Republicans these days: preventing government from doing anything really useful to help the American people. The founding fathers thought that government existed to do the people's work; Republicans think it's mainly there to prevent organized labor, free public education, immigration, immorality, and to keep women and minorities from putting on airs of "equality."
There ought to be a word for people who favor a small, weak, and ineffective government, incapable of doing anything but safeguarding wealth and privilege against the immoral, unwashed masses: "hypocrats."
Most of the time, each side in a divided Supreme Court has a rational argument for its position. But there's not reason behind a decision like this. The decision has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and everything to do with partisan politics. Forcing federal agencies to regulate backwards and do nothing that would cost money is the antithesis of good government.
That seems to be the aim of Republicans these days: preventing government from doing anything really useful to help the American people. The founding fathers thought that government existed to do the people's work; Republicans think it's mainly there to prevent organized labor, free public education, immigration, immorality, and to keep women and minorities from putting on airs of "equality."
There ought to be a word for people who favor a small, weak, and ineffective government, incapable of doing anything but safeguarding wealth and privilege against the immoral, unwashed masses: "hypocrats."
11
The issue will always be comparing the diffuse cost to the many against the focused cost to the few. Power Plant pollution adds untold costs to America's healthcare system with a broad range of ailments and congenital consequences that are hard to get a handle on. Business interests will alway discount these impacts to the diffuse common good in favor of maximizing profits, and as long as the burden falls mainly on the poor and in places we don't have to look at too often, American citizens will remain indifferent to their participation in destroying the planet. This is precisely what Pope Francis exposes in Laudato Si. It is up to us to care enough to inconvenience ourselves and make/demand the meaningful changes to our lifestyles that will ultimately be needed to stave off the worst of the consequences of global climate change.
5
“It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”
A few dollars? Really? When you make stuff up it's easy to rationalize anything. I wish Scalia would retire and find his real calling doing commentary for Fox news.
A few dollars? Really? When you make stuff up it's easy to rationalize anything. I wish Scalia would retire and find his real calling doing commentary for Fox news.
18
I want to know who is prescribing the hallucinogens Scalia's on. Why? Because I'd like to have the same hallucinations so I don't waste time worrying about retirement, the environment we're leaving behind, how much my medical care will cost, etc.
6
Corporations run this country, and anyone who is sick to death of this fact needs to join the growing number of groups organizing to resist the threat to our democracy.
We can't know the ultimate costs of unabated power plant pollution, but it is that very uncertainty that should demand prudence from this Court. Instead, we have more of the same--jurisprudence brought to us by Exxon Mobile, Peabody Coal, Chevron et al. How did we allow this to happen? How will we explain this to our children and to our children's children?
Read Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything." And organize, march, confront. A half million people marched in NYC last September. These were people just like you, and we will march again, more of us next time.
We can't know the ultimate costs of unabated power plant pollution, but it is that very uncertainty that should demand prudence from this Court. Instead, we have more of the same--jurisprudence brought to us by Exxon Mobile, Peabody Coal, Chevron et al. How did we allow this to happen? How will we explain this to our children and to our children's children?
Read Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything." And organize, march, confront. A half million people marched in NYC last September. These were people just like you, and we will march again, more of us next time.
8
I have written often of the stupidification of the United States by the Republicans. And then, as if a day cannot go by without another example, the Republican Roberts Court defends pumping mercury, so dangerous to fetal health, into the air.
The stupidification of the United States by the Republican Party is like a locomotive without brakes wreaking havoc throughout the land.
The stupidification of the United States by the Republican Party is like a locomotive without brakes wreaking havoc throughout the land.
5
I begin to wonder some times if the SC justices, power plant owners and other major polluters have children, grand children or great nephews/nieces?
What kind of world are we leaving to them and all of earth's creatures?
This is another example of this handful of poor decision-makers that have way too much corrupt power and unfettered, dangerous control over the rest of us.
Perhaps Pope 'Frannie' could give them a tongue lashing.
What kind of world are we leaving to them and all of earth's creatures?
This is another example of this handful of poor decision-makers that have way too much corrupt power and unfettered, dangerous control over the rest of us.
Perhaps Pope 'Frannie' could give them a tongue lashing.
7
Perfect end to an historical session of The US Supreme Court. Roberts writes to uphold healthcare for all Americans. Kennedy writes to extend liberty and freedom to ALL Americans. Still, lest we allow ourselves to think that "the forces of good" have finally triumphed over "the forces of evil", Alito writes to burn people alive from the inside and Scalia writes to allow filth to be pumped into our environment.
8
Switch to renewable energy at home. It's worth a few extra dollars. You will breathe easier.
4
America has become a full-fledged oligarchy. Average citizens have little hope of ever getting things changed with their votes. The Supreme Court is no longer a body which interprets the law; it is an arm of the sociopathic wealthy and powerful.
24
If there were a TRUE cost-benefit analysis on limiting costs on power plants there would be a place in the ledger for things like asthma, cancers, and other ailments that are caused, either directly or indirectly, from the endless toxic emissions that are spewed from these carbon-fired power plants into our collective air, water, and soil, that then end up in our food, our water, our bodies. Were these costs taken into account when they spoke of "cost-benefit" analysis?!
But, as long as we have a for-profit healthcare industry, the sicker we are the better for the bottom line.
This decision fits nicely into our capitalistic model, where private profits are the No. 1 goal, and public payments in the form of ill health, polluted water, air, and soil, pay are the real costs.
I am so tired of these right-wing justices who cannot think for one minute past the current paradigm.
When will this insanity end?!
But, as long as we have a for-profit healthcare industry, the sicker we are the better for the bottom line.
This decision fits nicely into our capitalistic model, where private profits are the No. 1 goal, and public payments in the form of ill health, polluted water, air, and soil, pay are the real costs.
I am so tired of these right-wing justices who cannot think for one minute past the current paradigm.
When will this insanity end?!
10
We live in a crazy country in the sense that hundreds of millions if not billions are spent on automobile recalls that save relatively few lives every year (not to say that the cars shouldn’t be recalled), yet EPA oversight intended to save the lives of thousands who now die as a consequence of foul air, water, etc. is determined to be over reaching… the longer term impact of the polluters aside that will have catastrophic consequences for future generations. I seriously doubt that the energy companies, most of who operate as monopolies, will be passing on any savings to consumers. So, clearly the population at large loses and big business wins. It is somewhat remarkable that the question “How can this be good for America” has been answered by SCOTUS crushing the EPA.
5
The court backed gay marriage because it was politically expedient considering the current cultural climate and arc of history with respect to this issue. However the environment and global warming does not have the same kind of traction despite the fact that it deals with an issue that at it's end, will determine the survivability of the human species.
So the EPA regulations don't consider the costs to the Energy industry? What about the energy industry considering the cost with respect to the viability of Earth as a place to harbor life? We humans must start ascribing higher value to innate things over primitive business estimates and GDP. The wellness and health of the planet, as the only known place in the universe that supports life, outweighs any other imperative, especially the imperative to make money at any cost. The alternative to this may be catastophic in the true sense of the word - "The Industrial Age and Age of Greed" a legacy that may have no one left alive to bear witness.
So the EPA regulations don't consider the costs to the Energy industry? What about the energy industry considering the cost with respect to the viability of Earth as a place to harbor life? We humans must start ascribing higher value to innate things over primitive business estimates and GDP. The wellness and health of the planet, as the only known place in the universe that supports life, outweighs any other imperative, especially the imperative to make money at any cost. The alternative to this may be catastophic in the true sense of the word - "The Industrial Age and Age of Greed" a legacy that may have no one left alive to bear witness.
5
This just underlines the need for a carbon tax. The real costs of burning fossil fuels should be reflected in their price. Then the market will do more of the work to reduce emissions.
9
So the Supreme Court decided to follow the law at least once this term, striking down Obama's sweeping executive overreach where it matters least--on a subject the Obama WH and the news media treat Americans like we are too dumb to understand.
7
Matters least? When you choke on a gay marriage or contract cancer from too much health care, just let us know. Believe me, your comment proves Obama and the media have dramatically overestimated American intelligence.
7
The supreme Court has no jurisdiction on this matter or the others this past week. Im going to call it out even though my side won on this issue. The supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution into law, nothing more. And when the court acts like this it's conflicting to a true republic
"Where it matters least" you say?!
Do you like clean water, clean air, and clean soil? Do you enjoy the benefits of a healthy ecosystem within which your body, and those of your family, can live long and prosper?
That you consider this a "matters least" issue is, I am afraid, an all-too-common sentiment among people in the developed world. We consider our air, water, and soil as something granted, if we even consider these things it all.
Do yourself a favor and talk a walk in the woods soon, and then sit quietly and think about your place in the natural world. Realize that the only reason you are able to live and breath here is a direct bi-product of the health of our ecosystem and environment at large. Because, whether you think so or not, your very health, and that of your family and those you love, depends on the health of our planet.
Do you like clean water, clean air, and clean soil? Do you enjoy the benefits of a healthy ecosystem within which your body, and those of your family, can live long and prosper?
That you consider this a "matters least" issue is, I am afraid, an all-too-common sentiment among people in the developed world. We consider our air, water, and soil as something granted, if we even consider these things it all.
Do yourself a favor and talk a walk in the woods soon, and then sit quietly and think about your place in the natural world. Realize that the only reason you are able to live and breath here is a direct bi-product of the health of our ecosystem and environment at large. Because, whether you think so or not, your very health, and that of your family and those you love, depends on the health of our planet.
6
The cost benefit analysis here is meant to derail regulatory supervision by judging regulation on their short term costs to industry, not the long term costs to citizens. The long term costs from global warming/climate change are enormous compared to the short term costs of not using coal, the major offender of both warming and air pollution on the planet. Just as in the voting rights case, again the supreme court is ignoring the evidence
18
I vote that right-wingers be forced to do long stints in the world's most polluted cities so they can remember why the EPA was created in the first place. The old adage about "the price of everything and the value of nothing" comes to mind.
23
"I vote that right-wingers be forced to do long stints in the world's most polluted cities so they can remember why the EPA was created in the first place."
Fortunately, that would be unconstitutional.
Fortunately, that would be unconstitutional.
Once again the fossil fuel cabal succeeds in stifling efforts to combat air pollution and carbon dispersal into our atmosphere.
12
Do the cost benefit analysis and include premature deaths, costs of educating and supporting brain damaged children when they are adults, the cost of taxpayer funded clean up when coal operators declare bankruptcy because they've raided the companies and then enact the same rules but with penalties commensurate with harm done.
14
You would think ALL the members of the SCOTUS would do just that. Naw, we're talking about the RATS(Roberts, alito, Thomas, scalia) and sometimes K here, so it's all about avoiding those pesky fact$.
3
It appears the only winners are the Koch Brothers and the coal mining barons. I guess the Koch brothers got their money's worth out of buying GOP politicians who in turn appoint politicians like Scalia, Alito, Roberts & Thomas to the bench.
14
The same bought and paid for Justices that brought us Citizens United.
We need to do something about this court.
We need to do something about this court.
8
So much for Republican objections to 'judicial activism'.
Republicans only object when it broadens or strengthens rights of individuals. When judicial activism confers absurd benefits on industry ( 'costly innovations versus people dying from chronic lung diseases) the Court is OK with acting as a Super Legislature.
It was never the intent of the Founders to confer to the Supreme Court, the power to decide whether and to what extent, industry should be regulated.
Republicans only object when it broadens or strengthens rights of individuals. When judicial activism confers absurd benefits on industry ( 'costly innovations versus people dying from chronic lung diseases) the Court is OK with acting as a Super Legislature.
It was never the intent of the Founders to confer to the Supreme Court, the power to decide whether and to what extent, industry should be regulated.
6
I think this ruling damages our collectively welfare, but it's somewhat ironic that when conservatives and liberals react to rulings like this, all of sudden their view of what is appropriate for "five lawyers" to decide outside of the normal democratic process switches from what we heard just a few days ago in response the gay marriage ruling.
However, from a "democratic republic" perspective, this case is entirely different as Congress authorized the executive branch (EPA) to adopt environmental regulations within certain bounds--so already the democratic lawmaking function had been delegated to unelected EPA officials.
However, from a "democratic republic" perspective, this case is entirely different as Congress authorized the executive branch (EPA) to adopt environmental regulations within certain bounds--so already the democratic lawmaking function had been delegated to unelected EPA officials.
1
I think it what is impotant is that the five justices rule consistent with the intended meaning of the constitution.
I have not read the decision, however regarding youi point: "Congress authorized the executive branch (EPA) to adopt environmental regulations within certain bounds--so already the democratic lawmaking function had been delegated to unelected EPA officials"
As I read the constitution, congress has the power to make laws, not to delegate that power to a bureaucracy. The first line after the preamble reads "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,...". If regulations go beyond the details of executing existing laws, and dramatically change their impact and scope, then isn't the EPA legislating? Said another way, did the congress and president envision this very major area when legislating the EPA?
Perhaps a simply solution is a bill from congress.
John
I have not read the decision, however regarding youi point: "Congress authorized the executive branch (EPA) to adopt environmental regulations within certain bounds--so already the democratic lawmaking function had been delegated to unelected EPA officials"
As I read the constitution, congress has the power to make laws, not to delegate that power to a bureaucracy. The first line after the preamble reads "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,...". If regulations go beyond the details of executing existing laws, and dramatically change their impact and scope, then isn't the EPA legislating? Said another way, did the congress and president envision this very major area when legislating the EPA?
Perhaps a simply solution is a bill from congress.
John
In 2008, President Obama initially supported "clean coal" but then reversed, concluding that coal is not safe for people or the environment. This is still true today. What a blow to health is today's ruling.
5
"Clean Coal" is a unicorn. It doesn't exist on any kind of commercial scale. It is a term coined by the Coal Industry itself. If you ask people who are partially in tune with the subject, many would think that it is a viable technology. That is how good the Coal/Carbon industry is at controlling the dialogue.
Jim in Arizona
Jim in Arizona
3
Gay marriage isn't going to kill or sicken anyone, but mercury and other toxic pollutants certainly do. One wonders where Scalia gets the idea that the benefits amount to only "a few dollars."
8
The usual cliches:
The Golden Rule, yet again...
Money talks...
The best court money can buy...
The reality: SCOTUS will give us a modicum of "liberal" or "progressive" decisions all the while ensuring that the monied interests will always get their decisions.
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith
The Golden Rule, yet again...
Money talks...
The best court money can buy...
The reality: SCOTUS will give us a modicum of "liberal" or "progressive" decisions all the while ensuring that the monied interests will always get their decisions.
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith
18
Exactly. That's why I keep saying there's NO such thing as a "conservative" they are all just greedy old people.
4
I had forgotten that succinct Galbraith remark. Thank you.
The meaning of this ruling is fairly simple; you have to pass laws if you want to change things. You can't rely on the supreme court for your entire agenda.
I find it appalling that the liberal wing of the court is so utterly corrupt that they believe they should be determining public policy not the people of the USA
I find it appalling that the liberal wing of the court is so utterly corrupt that they believe they should be determining public policy not the people of the USA
5
You've got this backwards. The law says nothing about doing a cost benefit analysis. The right wing of the court made this up to help their corporate patrons.
This is yet another example why it is so important to vote for a democrat for president in 16.
We don't need any more courtesans of big business (in this case big coal nee the Koch brothers) sitting on the Court to gut reasonable environmental protection measures. As a southeast Florida native I've seen my home already threatened by the rising ocean and as a resident of North Carolina I've seen how acid rain has denuded the trees at the highest elevations of the Smoky mountains.
We can look forward to more of the same thanks to the political agenda of the Roberts majority.
We don't need any more courtesans of big business (in this case big coal nee the Koch brothers) sitting on the Court to gut reasonable environmental protection measures. As a southeast Florida native I've seen my home already threatened by the rising ocean and as a resident of North Carolina I've seen how acid rain has denuded the trees at the highest elevations of the Smoky mountains.
We can look forward to more of the same thanks to the political agenda of the Roberts majority.
21
Do you even know the difference between a democracy and a republic?
If only a democratic president would nominate a really progressive justice! They go for moderate milk-toast democrats while the republicans always go for as conservative and ideological as possible.
This is where the rubber hits the road for the five corporatist judges. It's about the money and major energy industries. Gay marriage, not so much, they can tolerate that although testily, and ACA, well actually insurance companies are benefitting from that. Roberts will not risk his legacy over either of those issues, but he will not let down corporate America for any reason.
Poison the air, heat up the atmosphere, but go against the titans of industry? That's just a bridge too far.
KA
Poison the air, heat up the atmosphere, but go against the titans of industry? That's just a bridge too far.
KA
13
We all know the real damage coal emissions cause to every living entity on the planet, why not just invest like a good Americans in remediation companies?
Who needs to breath when your stock portfolio is rising.
Also if you leave a small fortune to your children, that"s great, they may need the extra money for their children who may suffer a life time because of our greed.
Who needs to breath when your stock portfolio is rising.
Also if you leave a small fortune to your children, that"s great, they may need the extra money for their children who may suffer a life time because of our greed.
4
oh well, in the short term more will die because campaign contributors will not have to fix polluting issues
I would imagine only a short term reprieve, the case goes back to Appeals
This term week was 4-1 against Conservatives, this case being the only one that went their way....
I would imagine only a short term reprieve, the case goes back to Appeals
This term week was 4-1 against Conservatives, this case being the only one that went their way....
1
...and arguably the most important decision in the grand scheme of things.
Money won again.
Money won again.
1
There was a cost analysis done and our lives don't cost anything to the rich and powerful so they are allowed to continue to dump toxins into the air and water. A day will come when the rich and powerful will have to pay the price for their unbridled greed.
14
For people who believe that the "poor" and the "middle class" should be taken care of by this government it seems foolish to back a bill that will only increase their energy bills. But then again the earth today is much more important than people feeding their families today.
One of the arguments that the EPA made in this case was that humans require air to breath. Profits trump human life. Way to go SCOTUS!
4
Let's at least thank Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer for trying.
3
MERCURY is very toxic for the brain. To allow corporations to pollute with Mercury is absolutely criminal from the Conservatives in the Supreme Court. Climate change is nothing compared to the effect of Mercury on the brains of Children and Adults.
It seems that when the issue is money the Supreme Court always backs corporations over people's health.
This should not stand that way. If the Supreme Court is sold to the corporations then it needs to be replaced.
It seems that when the issue is money the Supreme Court always backs corporations over people's health.
This should not stand that way. If the Supreme Court is sold to the corporations then it needs to be replaced.
7
Seems to me like the SCOTUS just did its own, ad-hoc, unquantified cost-benefit analysis. The poor, who disproportionately depend on subsistence fishing, are to bear the cost. The benefits shall accrue to the wealthy shareholders and CEOs of the power and coal companies.
7
This is massively bad news! You must vote out your Republican congress critters to save your future generations and be sure a Democrat is president again so more thoughtful wise justices are placed! These profits over lives justices are sick....
6
"Democracy is the road to socialism" Karl Marx
There's nothing our founding fathers despised more than democracy. Sadly most Americans don't know the difference.
There's nothing our founding fathers despised more than democracy. Sadly most Americans don't know the difference.
1
They even made it so that only educated, property owners could vote, and the senate couldn't be elected directly. Of course, we "fixed" that.
1
The Pope was correct in framing the issue of fossil fuel fuel pollution in terms of rich vs. poor. In any metropolitan area, the high rent neighborhoods are always upwind and upstream from the sources of pollution. The poor have no choice but to occupy the spaces abandoned by their more affluent neighbors. As a result, they have huge health problems.
If America had universal healthcare coverage up to the standard of the rest of the developed world, and taxpayers had to pay the full healthcare cost of this pollution on the the poor, the cost/benefit analysis might come out quite differently.
If America had universal healthcare coverage up to the standard of the rest of the developed world, and taxpayers had to pay the full healthcare cost of this pollution on the the poor, the cost/benefit analysis might come out quite differently.
123
Why do you think those areas are high rent?
Mike, this is not always true by any means. Lots of high rent districts in NYC near pollution sources.
Interesting how the left now cites the Pope when it comes to an economic and political issue in which he has no authority, but castigate him when he teaches the Church's poison on matters within his authority, such as the right to life.
Please be consistent.
Please be consistent.
The Supreme Court vs. the future of everyone. Great work, again. Watching the unfolding tragedy is nearly unbearable, as the sixth extinction proceeds apace. One can't even complain about privatizing profit versus socializing risk, because this will hurt everyone in the end.
7
Are you referring to the Obamacare ruling?
1
Kennedy and Roberts are happy to clear the backlog of social conservative irritants to general population like gay marriage and Obamacare subsidies; however, considering current court a "progressive" one in the meaning attached by Obama is a mistake.
I also don't understand why Obama took a victory lap after Obamacare and gay marriage decisions; he didn't run in 2008 on either of those, so I don't understand how he can take credit now. If anything, killing EPA regulations is far more damaging to his legacy as he laid it out in Audacity of Hope.
I also don't understand why Obama took a victory lap after Obamacare and gay marriage decisions; he didn't run in 2008 on either of those, so I don't understand how he can take credit now. If anything, killing EPA regulations is far more damaging to his legacy as he laid it out in Audacity of Hope.
4
Were not the pollution controls intended to save lives? Help prevent premature deaths? One wonders how the justices who struck down these rules live with themselves.
12
There's a larger issue here. Just as there was a larger issue in the gay marriage case; freedom to marry. You can't have it both ways.
The legislative branch delegated huge (some would say unconstitutional) powers to the executive branch to make rules in numerous areas of the nation's commerce and the economy -- here, the environment. Rules are like laws and are generally the province of Congress.
In order to make this delegation (arguably) Constitutional the executive branch needs to provide a reasonable basis for its rule making. Here, the Obama Adminstrstion failed to provide a reasonable basis.
If it's so self evident that the harm protected against in the relevant clean air rule is real, it would have been easy for the Adminstrstion to provide the necessary studies to support the rule. And the Administration's action would have been upheld, (if even challenged at all).
It chose not to. This is a pattern. The Adminstrstion is sloppy, arrogant and not buttoned up. (Don't believe me. Just wait until tommirow's conclusion of the nuclear talks with Iran.)
Your beef is with the wrong branch of government, Smoke.
The legislative branch delegated huge (some would say unconstitutional) powers to the executive branch to make rules in numerous areas of the nation's commerce and the economy -- here, the environment. Rules are like laws and are generally the province of Congress.
In order to make this delegation (arguably) Constitutional the executive branch needs to provide a reasonable basis for its rule making. Here, the Obama Adminstrstion failed to provide a reasonable basis.
If it's so self evident that the harm protected against in the relevant clean air rule is real, it would have been easy for the Adminstrstion to provide the necessary studies to support the rule. And the Administration's action would have been upheld, (if even challenged at all).
It chose not to. This is a pattern. The Adminstrstion is sloppy, arrogant and not buttoned up. (Don't believe me. Just wait until tommirow's conclusion of the nuclear talks with Iran.)
Your beef is with the wrong branch of government, Smoke.
1
Roughly 11,000 Americans die every year from power plant pollution, which includes highly toxic substances such as mercury, lead, arsenic, and nitrous oxide.
The right wing Supreme Court justices are saying in this decision that these unnecessary deaths are less important than whether the utility and power plant operators suffer a reduction in their profits.
Power plants may have to be nationalized, based on a public health emergency. Prior to Reagan, most utilities were operated for the public good, while profits were modest and consistent. Now, our power companies and fossil fuel suppliers are infected with the same vicious greed that threatens to consume the whole world.
With nationalization, there would be bank losses, something their lobbyists have learned how to avoid through bribery. We would see a far more rapid switch to solar, wind, and geothermal power, instead of extensions of deadly coal plants that are currently being implemented.
The coal plants, banks, and Supreme Court justices are suborning the murder of innocents, justified by a refusal to tamper with corporate profits. A prosecutor needs to file criminal indictments, and publicize the charges around the world. Then we might see change.
The right wing Supreme Court justices are saying in this decision that these unnecessary deaths are less important than whether the utility and power plant operators suffer a reduction in their profits.
Power plants may have to be nationalized, based on a public health emergency. Prior to Reagan, most utilities were operated for the public good, while profits were modest and consistent. Now, our power companies and fossil fuel suppliers are infected with the same vicious greed that threatens to consume the whole world.
With nationalization, there would be bank losses, something their lobbyists have learned how to avoid through bribery. We would see a far more rapid switch to solar, wind, and geothermal power, instead of extensions of deadly coal plants that are currently being implemented.
The coal plants, banks, and Supreme Court justices are suborning the murder of innocents, justified by a refusal to tamper with corporate profits. A prosecutor needs to file criminal indictments, and publicize the charges around the world. Then we might see change.
17
While regulation means spending tax dollars to create a healthy environment, it is far better than having people use Obamacare dollars to cure illnesses from these emissions.
6
Cost/benefit studies require funds. Republicans are busy 'starving the beast [of humanity]'. In their minds, there simply are no funds for anyone, but them, their relatives, and their pay-to-play friends!
8
I am amazed at all whining here about this when the Supremes are only requiring the EPA to live up to the letter of the law as written by Congress, should we allow every agency to make up their own rules as they see fit? It's bad enough when the Supreme Court does this, as it recently did when they somehow found the Right of Gays to marry in the Constitution...must have been some invisible ink the founders used.
3
Andrew
I hope you and your family breath, eat, and drink the Mercury that the corporations from which you make money are releasing into the biosphere.
I hope you and your family breath, eat, and drink the Mercury that the corporations from which you make money are releasing into the biosphere.
5
Ah yes, you see, this umbrella term, 'equality' just so happens to include marriage equality. Who knew that gays were people too?! But to those, who choose to not see past their narrow-mindedness (read: bigots), this omniscient definition presented in the Constitution does in fact appear as invisible ink. Open your mind, and maybe, just maybe you'll get to see it, too.
2
Of course he is...we all are are consuming these horrible toxins, as are Judge Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.
And here the United States was emerging as a leader for environmental protections. Now what can we hope for China and India when the bar is this low at home?
9
Just like in China access to unpolluted air and water in the US will soon be a privilege for only the well connected and rich. The party leadership lives in compounds in Beijing with built in state of the art air filtering systems paid by the taxpayer. The same applies to the rich who live in self-contained high rises with their own air and water purification systems and cars with air filtering built in. The court is simply serving corporate interests who see this as new growth opportunity.
7
Corporations are people, my friend, but unlike conventional people they don't need to inhale clean air to live, just a steady supply of cash.
39
This Court serves the wealthy and the corporate interests first and foremost. Their primary effort is to guarantee that corporate profits remain untouched and that the electoral process serves corporate ambitions. Gay rights and healthcare are social throw-away issues for them. Suppressing minority voting, handing elections over to the extremely wealthy, protecting profits - these are the mandates for the Roberts Court majority- the most anti-democratic in modern history.
25
There is only one planet called Earth, our home. We need to protect it.
I'd like to remind everyone that earlier this decade we lost Pluto as a planet. We went from nine to eight planets. Are we trying to make the solar system consist of seven planets?
I'd like to remind everyone that earlier this decade we lost Pluto as a planet. We went from nine to eight planets. Are we trying to make the solar system consist of seven planets?
1
If it doesn't fit you must acquit. The EPA didn't even produce a glove, instead their defense was "the dog ate my homework, but why is that so important anyway?". Because environmental hippies are running amok in this country.
Good decision, well done Justices. All indications are, market economics will take care of this one (as they should).
Good decision, well done Justices. All indications are, market economics will take care of this one (as they should).
3
Market economics are short-circuited by allowing the power companies to avoid paying the true costs of their power production. The true costs include the medical bills and lost income from respiratory illnesses and premature deaths of people who have to breath the toxins they put into the air. The fact that they are let off the hook for these costs distorts the market incentives, leaving no reason for them to control emissions at all. Market economics now will ensure that power companies will continue to pollute and leave to us actual breathing persons to pay the price. SCOTUS has again ruled in favor of preserving public subsidy of corporate expenses.
3
I disagree. The business case for Coal is only headed down. And that pace has increased exponentially the last year because of the steep decline in natural gas prices.
What the EPA and others fail to realize is that oil and gas prices have turned everything, from energy economics, renewable energy, electric cars, to global politics and the use of oil as a bargaining chip, especially in the Middle East, completely topsy-turvy. All in the short span of ONE year.
So yes, old arguments need to be shredded across-the-board by all parties. Business cases must be re-written. Rewrite or perish, that's the message that needs to be taken from the SCOTUS ruling today. But of course many won't. In the meantime, a few smart people in Wall Street will foresee the long wake-up time, place their bets, later walk away, pockets stuffed with cash. Good for them, they deserve to.
What the EPA and others fail to realize is that oil and gas prices have turned everything, from energy economics, renewable energy, electric cars, to global politics and the use of oil as a bargaining chip, especially in the Middle East, completely topsy-turvy. All in the short span of ONE year.
So yes, old arguments need to be shredded across-the-board by all parties. Business cases must be re-written. Rewrite or perish, that's the message that needs to be taken from the SCOTUS ruling today. But of course many won't. In the meantime, a few smart people in Wall Street will foresee the long wake-up time, place their bets, later walk away, pockets stuffed with cash. Good for them, they deserve to.
1
Well, obviously, conservatives don't need oxygen to breathe.
15
They've gotten by on their hot air this long haven't they? They probably think everyone else can too.
Those rich abusers have air filters and water filters installed in their homes to protect themselves from the pollution they produce.
1
So, five people get to decide that we can continue heating up the environment with disastrous consequences. Gee, that's democratic!
22
Same 5 people decided the gay marriage issue and upheld the ACA. Just as democratic. Maybe the democracy is that the Left wins some, the Right wins some.
Our country is a republic, If you don't kniw that you should get to studing. And by the way" democracy is the road to socialism " Karl Marx.
If you want to research what is really causing the wide spread climate change please read this article released byKlaus Keller
Associate Professor
Ph.D., Princeton University, 2000
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23057076?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Associate Professor
Ph.D., Princeton University, 2000
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23057076?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The tragedy of this decision: Mother Earth will survive anything man's puny existence could possible throw at her. The downside? We won't and at that point, investor's well being, the root of today's decision, will be moot.
It seems SCOTUS can contort the constitution for all kinds of interest; sadly mass extinction isn't one of them.
It seems SCOTUS can contort the constitution for all kinds of interest; sadly mass extinction isn't one of them.
17
So I guess this means as far as Justices Kennedy and Roberts are concerned (Scalia, Alito and Thomas couldn't make a correct decision if their lives depended on it) the cost of people getting sick and dying isn't really a cost, since the affected aren't showing it on their balance sheets…
23
This ruling has implications to the need for a Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI) which governs Federal Government Contracting. The key "Cost" is the Economic & Social Cost of Job Loss related to the loss of jobs when the FSSI mandates government procurement from a Select Few while causing significant displacement to the Small Business Government Contracting Community.
Once again the great hidden cost of using coal have been ignored by SCOTUS. The Court has ruled in favor of privatizing profit and socializing costs. If you want to burn coal, pay all of the costs as part of the price of coal. Coal can not compete when the true costs are factored in and Big Coal knows that to be true. This ruling is a prime example of how our political system is biased to the rich; the poor and middle class can just suffer. What are they worth anyway? Always comes down to a price doesn't it?
227
Odd how the conservative members of the SCOTUS require strict and precise black letter language only when voting on progressive legislation or issues; but have no problem pretending that the vaguely worded "appropriate and necessary" phrase means the EPA must spend thousands of dollars on a cost benefit analysis for the preliminary steps of any regulation. Talk about fabricating decisions where no authorization exists...
27
Personally, I would have liked to have seen these rules enacted. Having said that, I am amazed by how the Court constantly breaks along the same lines, with a couple of Justices joining one "side" or the other. Whatever happened to looking at a case based on the law? There are four liberals and three conservatives on the court that always seem to vote based on what feels right to them, not on what the law says.
51
Robert - Where exactly in "the law" does it give the right to the EPA to raise electric rates for the poor and middle class in America?
This should be simple common sense. You poison the air, the same air we all breathe, and that's a problem. Period! Easy decision, or it should be.
1
HERE, HERE ...
but in these comments sections, only the republicans who are ideologues are wrong. The fact that the liberals vote in a BLOC should be as disturbing to every American as the fact that Alito, Thomas and Scalia vote in a BLOC.
It appears the only Justices who are not partisan ideologues are Kennedy and Roberts. Of course the ideologues on these very pages attack them with invective when they don't vote with the Liberal Bloc.
How sad...
but in these comments sections, only the republicans who are ideologues are wrong. The fact that the liberals vote in a BLOC should be as disturbing to every American as the fact that Alito, Thomas and Scalia vote in a BLOC.
It appears the only Justices who are not partisan ideologues are Kennedy and Roberts. Of course the ideologues on these very pages attack them with invective when they don't vote with the Liberal Bloc.
How sad...
And what neighborhoods do the justices live in? I doubt any of them live near a coal fired power plant, or have to drink water polluted by effluent from a coal mine. Nice to rule from the lofty level of the bench, where the air is clean and their minds haven't been clouded by mercury.
34
Couldn't have said it better myself as I am at the port of Providence and the smell of oil and other fossil fuels permeates the air.
3
DS: And where they can work in a gun-free zone too!! Yippee!!
EW
EW
The most important aspect of this ruling is the court's emphasis on the relatively new (and loathsome) practice by government called the "COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS."
The problem with using this horrid system -- which basically calculates how many lives *might be* harmed by an industry practice versus how much money it will cost that industry and whether *enough* people will be harmed to justify the government stepping in and regulating that business -- is that it points to the fact that Washington DC has decided, in collusion with Wall Street and corporations, that the value of profit far exceeds the value of human life and health in the U.S. (Considering the impact this ruling will have on global climate change, it will impact all of humankind.)
How many fetuses must be damaged by mercury poisoning before government regulation is "justifiable"? How many people have to suffer from asthma and other ailments before a regulation can be implemented?
But most importantly, will the justices allow the EPA to regulate carbon, or do they believe profits of energy companies are far more important and that the extinction of all of humanity (and many species) on planet earth an unjustifiable and too costly regulation?
(Before you bemoan those "horrid Republicans and their pro-business ways," just know that the use of cost-benefit analysis measurement in determining regulation has been stepped up by the Obama administration.)
The problem with using this horrid system -- which basically calculates how many lives *might be* harmed by an industry practice versus how much money it will cost that industry and whether *enough* people will be harmed to justify the government stepping in and regulating that business -- is that it points to the fact that Washington DC has decided, in collusion with Wall Street and corporations, that the value of profit far exceeds the value of human life and health in the U.S. (Considering the impact this ruling will have on global climate change, it will impact all of humankind.)
How many fetuses must be damaged by mercury poisoning before government regulation is "justifiable"? How many people have to suffer from asthma and other ailments before a regulation can be implemented?
But most importantly, will the justices allow the EPA to regulate carbon, or do they believe profits of energy companies are far more important and that the extinction of all of humanity (and many species) on planet earth an unjustifiable and too costly regulation?
(Before you bemoan those "horrid Republicans and their pro-business ways," just know that the use of cost-benefit analysis measurement in determining regulation has been stepped up by the Obama administration.)
30
Remember this is the same Supreme Court who ruled in favor of corporations in their 2010 Citizens United decision, so it's no surprise "the use of cost-benefit analysis....has been stepped up by the Obama administration." Our government is now run by major corporations. Sadly, this means your plaintive and justified cry for mercy will continue to go unheeded. I can only share your frustration and profound disheartenment for all humanity as we move inexorably toward destruction. And I must say, I can only scratch my head in wonderment that those who wield the power seem incapable of understanding that they and their descendants, too, will be severely and unquestionably harmed by their own denial.
19
Unfortunately, this will lead to other challenges.
Currently, the EPA is trying to rein in particulates from burning diesel fuel. These fine dusts bypass the body's defenses and enter the brain via nerve cells in the nose. Reference Mother Jones, July 2015, pg. 18, "This is your brain on smog," by Aaron Reuben. Fine dust has been connected to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other diseases in the brain.
If the EPA and other regulators, are hampered by providing a cost benefit analysis for every attempt to control pollution we will be back in the 1960's with the Cuyahoga river on fire.
And, besides, if engineering companies can't accurately predict costs, a key part of a cost benefit analysis, what makes you think regulators can? A recent study of 365 mega-projects in the oil and gas industry showed that 63% over-ran their budgets.
Currently, the EPA is trying to rein in particulates from burning diesel fuel. These fine dusts bypass the body's defenses and enter the brain via nerve cells in the nose. Reference Mother Jones, July 2015, pg. 18, "This is your brain on smog," by Aaron Reuben. Fine dust has been connected to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other diseases in the brain.
If the EPA and other regulators, are hampered by providing a cost benefit analysis for every attempt to control pollution we will be back in the 1960's with the Cuyahoga river on fire.
And, besides, if engineering companies can't accurately predict costs, a key part of a cost benefit analysis, what makes you think regulators can? A recent study of 365 mega-projects in the oil and gas industry showed that 63% over-ran their budgets.
13
Obama was a creature of the coal industry long before he became President. He hasn't changed his spots much, either-he laughs at the entire environmental
movement. He may cease laughing in a decade. I can safely predict he will say "If I had only known! I wish I had done more. I wish I had taken this more seriously , but where were the experts?! There were no people in the White House telling me what to think and how I should act. . . ?"
movement. He may cease laughing in a decade. I can safely predict he will say "If I had only known! I wish I had done more. I wish I had taken this more seriously , but where were the experts?! There were no people in the White House telling me what to think and how I should act. . . ?"
3
Well it's good to know that painful deaths won't be limited to those on death row. Now we all can die gasping for breath.
30
Why is the supreme Court even voting on this matter, or the other matters they have tackled in the past week. I think people have forgotten or perhaps never realized, the supreme court is there to interpret the Constitution into law nothing more. All these cases are not in there jurisdiction, and them ruling on these cases is conflicting to a true republic.
1
Another nail in our planet's coffin.
7
no surprise - the roberts court has a history of protecting corporate profits, no matter the consequences.
25
Now we know just how much our lives are worth to this extremely Conservative court.
12
The SCOTUS threw conservatives two bones today. They can continue executing people and polluting the environment. Raucous cheering at RNC headquarters ensues...
24
Well ALL is not lost, this will make more independents and liberals vote out the Republicans and that also very good for the environment.
6
“Well ALL is not lost, this will make more independents and liberals vote out the Republicans and that also very good for the environment.”
If this is one thing I have learned in the last 40 years is that “independents” (really no such thing if you press them) and liberals have become spineless wimps. I protested in the streets against Viet Nam...as I had been there in the Army Nurse Corps. I was thrown down and handcuffed and thrown in jail...then got back out and did it again. Then I worked for the campaigns of locally elected officials moving up to higher offices.
I worked with Robert Redford in Utah. Redford has been involved with many pieces of environmental legislation including the Clean Air Act (1974-75), The Energy Conservation and Production Act (1974-76) and the National Energy Policy Act (1989).
In 1975, he fought against the building of a coal-fired power plant planned for an area in Southern Utah SURROUNDED BY FIVE NATIONAL PARKS. Yes! Utah has the most incredible FIVE National Parks and the plant WAS NEVER BUILT.
In 1997, after a long and contentious battle, in which Redford worked with a large coalition of activists to save this very same area from commercial exploitation, President Clinton designated it the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument!
We did it! In a state highly dependent on coal production in Carbon County--(Yes..that’s true--Carbon County) we got a protected National Monument!
Now? They don’t get off their duffs to vote!
If this is one thing I have learned in the last 40 years is that “independents” (really no such thing if you press them) and liberals have become spineless wimps. I protested in the streets against Viet Nam...as I had been there in the Army Nurse Corps. I was thrown down and handcuffed and thrown in jail...then got back out and did it again. Then I worked for the campaigns of locally elected officials moving up to higher offices.
I worked with Robert Redford in Utah. Redford has been involved with many pieces of environmental legislation including the Clean Air Act (1974-75), The Energy Conservation and Production Act (1974-76) and the National Energy Policy Act (1989).
In 1975, he fought against the building of a coal-fired power plant planned for an area in Southern Utah SURROUNDED BY FIVE NATIONAL PARKS. Yes! Utah has the most incredible FIVE National Parks and the plant WAS NEVER BUILT.
In 1997, after a long and contentious battle, in which Redford worked with a large coalition of activists to save this very same area from commercial exploitation, President Clinton designated it the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument!
We did it! In a state highly dependent on coal production in Carbon County--(Yes..that’s true--Carbon County) we got a protected National Monument!
Now? They don’t get off their duffs to vote!
3
It is not for the EPA nor Obama to make laws. Nor is it the Surpreme Courts place to make laws such as Affordable Health Care or same sex marriage.
How do you think this country survived the Great Depression? FDR wrote laws. He saved the country while the courts and Congress stood by and critiqued his efforts.
no matter the costs, no life form on earth can breathe money. the health impacts of pollution are going to kill us all if we don't stop placating profits at the expense of our health and the health of our planet.
when does health get to surpass profits as our primary concern?
when does health get to surpass profits as our primary concern?
47
This while the government covertly spreads nano particles of aluminum in our skies. Is this not pollution? And as his main big money backer, funder and protector Geo. Soros said a while back, " America is the last obstacle to the coming of the New World Order. A global governance that cannot take over until America is taken out of the way,
taken down politically and economically. Also Ob's Sceince czar said,
" we,, need to deconstruct this nation." And this is being done as we see today.
taken down politically and economically. Also Ob's Sceince czar said,
" we,, need to deconstruct this nation." And this is being done as we see today.
2
Progressives had their week, now conservatives get one.
3
Yep anything involving keeping profit to Big pharma, Big coal, etc, you can assure yourself how Kennedy will cross back over to vote for the corps!
1
As Scalia well knows, corporations need to buy votes but they don't need to breathe clean air.
23
No reason now to be burning coal, anyway. Those plants should be phased out, and soon.
7
Leonard Flier - What could we be burning to keep our present level of social welfare? Is wind and solar ready for prime time, yet?
if corporations are people and money is speech, what are individual human beings?
So the same four god-fearing, pro-life, quote Christian unquote justices have come down again on the side of corporate goodness and righteousness, and while love & marriage needs to be curtailed. This dovetails perfectly with the death penalty ruling. Who needs air, who needs life?
Now isn't that the milk of human kindness? Gee, I wonder where they'll land on Affirmative Action? I can set my clock by these guys.
So the same four god-fearing, pro-life, quote Christian unquote justices have come down again on the side of corporate goodness and righteousness, and while love & marriage needs to be curtailed. This dovetails perfectly with the death penalty ruling. Who needs air, who needs life?
Now isn't that the milk of human kindness? Gee, I wonder where they'll land on Affirmative Action? I can set my clock by these guys.
7
What are human beings? Dangerous. Very dangerous.
No-one in those 20 industry groups is working towards a solution; they are merely delaying with all their might the demise of fossil fuel revenues.
We wil continue to see all attempts to curb emissions or reduce fossil fuel use fought with every tool available to the industry, primarily through paying our congress to do nothing.
We wil continue to see all attempts to curb emissions or reduce fossil fuel use fought with every tool available to the industry, primarily through paying our congress to do nothing.
7
Woe be unto us, because humans will continue down the road of polluting and destroying everything we need for our longterm survival. It didn't have to be this way, but greed, stupidity, and a malignant ideology were just too powerful to overcome. I pity future generations.
159
Dianne Jackson: The future is here, now and "we've met the enemy: it is us".
1
"Industry groups said the government had imposed annual costs of $9.6 billion to achieve about $6 million in benefits."
Yeah, costs and benefits to their bottom line in the short term. To the rest of us, the benefits of not breathing in air contaminated with heavy metals and mercury are much greater than $9.6 billion. Which might not even be the real cost of the regulations, since polluters spew out phony figures like the toxins they put in the air. Imagine if we'd spent the trillion-plus dollars we did in Iraq on getting this country off coal.
Yeah, costs and benefits to their bottom line in the short term. To the rest of us, the benefits of not breathing in air contaminated with heavy metals and mercury are much greater than $9.6 billion. Which might not even be the real cost of the regulations, since polluters spew out phony figures like the toxins they put in the air. Imagine if we'd spent the trillion-plus dollars we did in Iraq on getting this country off coal.
10
Don’t believe the comments here suggesting that the Supreme Court is simply supporting big business and allowing them to pollute. Mercury is terrible stuff and the health-effects of mercury poisoning are quite clear. Giving that undisputed fact, it should have been easy for the EPA to do a cost/benefit analysis showing the benefits of this rule. EPA could not do this. Almost none of the purported future reduction in deaths, heart attacks and asthma in their analysis came from reducing mercury. The cost/benefit analysis done by the EPA depends almost entirely on co-benefits of reducing other pollutants, especially fine particulates.
As it turns out, the EPA also regulates fine particulates, and the plants being targeted for closure under the “mercury rule” meet the fine particulate standards set by the EPA. The EPA also has the authority to make tighter fine particulate rules if warranted.
Just to repeat, the actual analysis done by the EPA shows that the cost of controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants is not cost-effective by itself. Some have suggested that the Bush EPA did the opposite (e.g. understating benefits and overstating costs). In any case, the right answer is that the EPA should be held accountable to using rational analysis and not bias the case to suit a sitting president.
As it turns out, the EPA also regulates fine particulates, and the plants being targeted for closure under the “mercury rule” meet the fine particulate standards set by the EPA. The EPA also has the authority to make tighter fine particulate rules if warranted.
Just to repeat, the actual analysis done by the EPA shows that the cost of controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants is not cost-effective by itself. Some have suggested that the Bush EPA did the opposite (e.g. understating benefits and overstating costs). In any case, the right answer is that the EPA should be held accountable to using rational analysis and not bias the case to suit a sitting president.
7
And what is "cost-effective?"
How much is a health related death or illness worth in these "cost-benefit analyses?" I suspect that much less price is put upon the suffering of humans than cost of energy corporations. Especially since you can't really accurately measure actual damage to human health and must "guesstimate" what harm it causes. But boy-howdy, can you tally up that dollar cost for a corporation.
That's the problem with doing these cost-benefit analyses. There is no way you can accurately estimate human damage from pollution and human health damage and deaths will most definitely be under counted.
How much is a health related death or illness worth in these "cost-benefit analyses?" I suspect that much less price is put upon the suffering of humans than cost of energy corporations. Especially since you can't really accurately measure actual damage to human health and must "guesstimate" what harm it causes. But boy-howdy, can you tally up that dollar cost for a corporation.
That's the problem with doing these cost-benefit analyses. There is no way you can accurately estimate human damage from pollution and human health damage and deaths will most definitely be under counted.
2
Flawed logic by the conservatives on the Court. How do you set a $ on environmental degradation? How much cancer, lung disease, mercury poisoning, acidification of the oceans before the EPA can act? When businesses say so?
So, it would be ok if for example if 1% of the people got cancer or lung disease from coal emissions if the $ value of those people is worth less than the costs to businesses? And how do you put a $ on the acidification of the oceans with its consequential elimination of ocean species like coral? And all these negative effects would constantly change over time. Would likely be cumulative.
So, it would be ok if for example if 1% of the people got cancer or lung disease from coal emissions if the $ value of those people is worth less than the costs to businesses? And how do you put a $ on the acidification of the oceans with its consequential elimination of ocean species like coral? And all these negative effects would constantly change over time. Would likely be cumulative.
3
Controlling mercury? Many of the ideas for controlling mercury have not been considered. It will take a concerted effort and unless the technology is tried it cannot be perfected.
Just how does one determine the cost of mortality and morbidity?
The justices that insist that every human life -- including "unborn life" -- is priceless might do well to compare the relative threat to life presented by abortion vs. the threat to life caused by coal-fired electric generation and the mining required to obtain the coal in the first place. There's simply no question that coal sickens and kills more people in the US than legal abortion ever has.
The justices that insist that every human life -- including "unborn life" -- is priceless might do well to compare the relative threat to life presented by abortion vs. the threat to life caused by coal-fired electric generation and the mining required to obtain the coal in the first place. There's simply no question that coal sickens and kills more people in the US than legal abortion ever has.
7
Actually, determining the cost of mortality and morbidity is very, very simple and is done every day by insurance companies. If thousands of people were getting sick or dying every year from mercury pollution -- which they aren't, fyi -- it would be very simple for the EPA to justify the cost of cleaning up the pollution. Since that is not happening, they can't justify it. Very simple.
As we have seen with SCOTUS since the 1970's every ruling has people who favor and disapprove of the rulings. In theory, people argue this branch is not political, but in reality it could not be further from the truth. Due to this as a lifelong Democrat. I would have much rather lost this case, then the two major court rulings last week.
This ruling is good in the short-term because there is no longer the possibility that thousands of workers become unemployed, especially in rural areas. I've noticed many people commenting on this ruling are from urban or densely populated areas. The problem is small towns/rural areas these jobs are the only well paying jobs within ten to one hundred miles. When coal plants close these local economies crash and burn. No more funding for schools, local business can't stay open because nobody can buy their product/service. Leading to separated families, drug abuse, and other social problems. Environmentalists need to think of a way to shut down coal plants without shutting down local economies that will suffer. You can celebrate shutting down a coal plant, but there needs to be an alternative for these families who lose jobs. Maybe something similar to job training assistance with free trade agreements. One can argue I'm short sighted in this comment, but when a family has no job living in poverty, they are still not breathing.
This ruling is good in the short-term because there is no longer the possibility that thousands of workers become unemployed, especially in rural areas. I've noticed many people commenting on this ruling are from urban or densely populated areas. The problem is small towns/rural areas these jobs are the only well paying jobs within ten to one hundred miles. When coal plants close these local economies crash and burn. No more funding for schools, local business can't stay open because nobody can buy their product/service. Leading to separated families, drug abuse, and other social problems. Environmentalists need to think of a way to shut down coal plants without shutting down local economies that will suffer. You can celebrate shutting down a coal plant, but there needs to be an alternative for these families who lose jobs. Maybe something similar to job training assistance with free trade agreements. One can argue I'm short sighted in this comment, but when a family has no job living in poverty, they are still not breathing.
6
So you are for polluting jobs against the future of the human race. Good to know.
I get what you're trying to say, but the best jobs program would be a full-scale shift to clean energy, storage, and delivery.
I get what you're trying to say, but the best jobs program would be a full-scale shift to clean energy, storage, and delivery.
Mercury being a heavy metal causes brain damage, so of course to the conservative judges there is no negative cost to it, since if we create millions of brain dead people it will lead to election victories for their conservative patrons.......
As far as cost benefit, I guess health affects mean nothing. What I would love to know is where the industry got that 6 million dollar number from, I would bet that represents the cost of cleanup in the short term, but leaves out long term health effects of exposure to the toxins. The Tobacco industry did that with their product, they showed how tobacco caused very little in terms of costs, but of course they left out the health costs of smoking.
As far as cost benefit, I guess health affects mean nothing. What I would love to know is where the industry got that 6 million dollar number from, I would bet that represents the cost of cleanup in the short term, but leaves out long term health effects of exposure to the toxins. The Tobacco industry did that with their product, they showed how tobacco caused very little in terms of costs, but of course they left out the health costs of smoking.
11
It's the left that has no brain; the right, no heart. And so we continue on with NIMBY principle while other countries buy and burn low-grade coal exports that can't be used in the US.
This is great. Now instead of walking all the way to my garbage can, I can just toss my garbage into my neighbor's yard because time is money, and it will be cheaper for me. Saving money is much more important than the environment or saving lives. Glad to see the Justices were raised with good values.
370
Jeffrey,
Excellent analogy.
Throwing your garbage into our neighbor's yard won't cost us a dime...so let's not consider how much time and effort it will cost your neighbor to deal with our mess.
Excellent analogy.
Throwing your garbage into our neighbor's yard won't cost us a dime...so let's not consider how much time and effort it will cost your neighbor to deal with our mess.
1
straight from the mouths of our corporations...who have been deemed more important people...than the rest of everyday Americans
This decision of favor of polluters is a major disappointment. Public health and fighting global warming have lost, polluters have won. Why am I not surprised on which side of the court was in the majority in this opinion? How can public health and fighting global warming be left in the hands of the likes of Scalia, Thomas and Alito? It's shameful.
184
I understand that Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan all have degrees in air ecology. Give me Thomas, Alito and Scalia any day, they've got brains.
And the article sadly shows us just how far we are from thinking sensibly about this situation:
"The decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46 was a setback for environmentalists."
How about a major setback for every single living, breathing human being on the face of the earth? Or for the other 1,000,000,000,000 individual lives out there that make it all possible for US to be here and be healthy?!
"The decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46 was a setback for environmentalists."
How about a major setback for every single living, breathing human being on the face of the earth? Or for the other 1,000,000,000,000 individual lives out there that make it all possible for US to be here and be healthy?!
1
You're leaving out Anthony Kennedy. He is just as bad as Scalia & co. on these type of issues.
The Supreme Court has spoken: It is so ordered that people don't need clean air if it is actually going to cost the people and corporations who do the polluting any money. I can see that rational being reasonable if you are an unreasonable person.
14
This not just a "setback for environmentalists", it's a setback for the future health of the human race.
32
As Pope Francis pointed out, "The Earth, our home, is beginning to look like an immense pile of filth." This Supreme Court bears some responsibility for that sad fact.
415
And all of the justices in the majority who voted for this ugly decision -- ironically! -- are Catholic!
1
More than "some". The U.S. is the world's worst polluter as we use something like 25% of the world's energy, and the SC has just given the green light to more of the same.
1
It is NOT the Supreme Court's job to protect the environment. It is OUR job as humans and people. Blaming the court is such a cop out when this case was an administrative law case, not an environmental law case.
This decision is the reason for which we need to have public utilities and not privately owned utility companies.
33
Who needs to breathe unpolluted air when there's money to be made?
It wouldn't be right, would it, to force industries that spew out mercury and other dangerous toxins to pay "punishing costs" for the privilege of poisoning the nation's air and water?
And this ruling comes from the United States Supreme Court, America's final refuge for citizens seeking justice and redress of grievances.
And while many of us excoriate the court, let us not forget the shameful role of former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in bringing us to this auspicious moment.
O'Connor cast the pivotal vote that gave us George W. Bush as President. Then she resigned because she had better things to do. Bush replaced her with Justice Samuel Alito, then went on to appoint Chief Justice Roberts.
Thus we have the Roberts Court, the resulting oligarchy and Citizens United, among other democracy destroyers.
Heckuva job, Sandy!
It wouldn't be right, would it, to force industries that spew out mercury and other dangerous toxins to pay "punishing costs" for the privilege of poisoning the nation's air and water?
And this ruling comes from the United States Supreme Court, America's final refuge for citizens seeking justice and redress of grievances.
And while many of us excoriate the court, let us not forget the shameful role of former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in bringing us to this auspicious moment.
O'Connor cast the pivotal vote that gave us George W. Bush as President. Then she resigned because she had better things to do. Bush replaced her with Justice Samuel Alito, then went on to appoint Chief Justice Roberts.
Thus we have the Roberts Court, the resulting oligarchy and Citizens United, among other democracy destroyers.
Heckuva job, Sandy!
17
Might want to look up auspicious. Based on context, it can't be what you meant.
While I'm at it, I would just like to point out that the cost benefit analysis being referred to was for the benefit of the people and not the corporations. As anyone in business understands, increase in cost of manufacturing leads to an increase in cost of goods. I'm sure that doesn't change your mind, but it's a good idea to keep that concept in mind for other issues like minimum wage.
While I'm at it, I would just like to point out that the cost benefit analysis being referred to was for the benefit of the people and not the corporations. As anyone in business understands, increase in cost of manufacturing leads to an increase in cost of goods. I'm sure that doesn't change your mind, but it's a good idea to keep that concept in mind for other issues like minimum wage.
"The agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its regulations"??? This is a big set-back for the EPA. You could say, any cost to protect public health is a punishing cost. It used to be that if there was a clear and present danger to public health, a facility could be ordered to cease and desist - even if it meant going out of business permanently. Now it seems like that EPA must prove that measures to correct a health hazard fall within the companies budget for maintenance. If not, it can continue to pollute.
11
Then your Democratic Congress forces us to use light bulbs the contain what? Oh, mercury that requires special disposal. When are you people going to wake up? You get fed mercury in light bulbs a lot more concentrate or particulate than coal fired power plants. I still use incandescent.
I have heard many times since the court's decision to grant gays equal rights, that this is the "most liberal court we have had in decades", is this the same as Obama is the most "liberal President"? It is truly sad that granting rights to same sex partners is considered in garish political terms. But suffice it to say, this ruling, like many others on campaign contributions, illustrate this is not a liberal court at all.
11
Most recent gas turbine hybrid electrical generation creates electricity with less than a third of the CO2 than from coal. There is a large capital cost to shut down existing coal fired plants and replace them with modern technology. We should have a carbon tax that would make this transition the economical route to go.
Then I spilled my tea and woke up.
Then I spilled my tea and woke up.
9
You forgot to add ...and much less expensive per kWh. Plus combined-cycle generators can compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar. The reality is that coal is doomed; it's just a question of how long before the last plant finally closes. A carbon tax would accelerate that, if it could be enacted--but don't hold your breath.
Well, you rnn down to KY and tell them that they need more gas and less coal, jobs, etc. Oh, yeah whip over to China and India and let them know what they should do. We don't even make a pimple on an elephant's rear as opposed to how much they pollute.
Not correct. Gas power plants are just as bad for our CO2 emissions as coal is, due to well casing links and delivery pipes with high leakage rates. Google Howarth and Ingreffea.
Mercury from coal is a very toxic pollutant that has been proven to have a significant impact on the brains of young children. There is so much mercury in the great lakes from all the nearby coal power plants that the fish are basically inedible.
The EPA tells us on theor website that "For fetuses, infants, and children, the primary health effect of methylmercury is impaired neurological development. Methylmercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother's consumption of fish and shellfish that contain methylmercury, can adversely affect a baby's growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.
Cost benefit? How much is that worth to you and your children?
The EPA tells us on theor website that "For fetuses, infants, and children, the primary health effect of methylmercury is impaired neurological development. Methylmercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother's consumption of fish and shellfish that contain methylmercury, can adversely affect a baby's growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.
Cost benefit? How much is that worth to you and your children?
400
the price is immeasurable.
Well said. But, may I add that ethylmercury can also wreak enormous harm.
Ethylmercury not only inhibits mitochondrial respiration leading to a drop in the steady state membrane potential, but also concurrent with these phenomena increases the formation of superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and Fenton/Haber-Weiss generated hydroxyl radical. These oxidants increase the levels of cellular aldehyde/ketones. Additionally, studies show a five-fold increase in the levels of oxidant damaged mitochondrial DNA bases and increases in the levels of mtDNA nicks and blunt-ended breaks. Highly damaged mitochondria are characterized by having very low membrane potentials, increased superoxide/hydrogen peroxide production, and extensively damaged mtDNA and proteins. These mitochondria appear to have undergone a permeability transition, an observation supported by the five-fold increase in Caspase-3 activity observed after Thimerosal treatment.
Ethylmercury not only inhibits mitochondrial respiration leading to a drop in the steady state membrane potential, but also concurrent with these phenomena increases the formation of superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and Fenton/Haber-Weiss generated hydroxyl radical. These oxidants increase the levels of cellular aldehyde/ketones. Additionally, studies show a five-fold increase in the levels of oxidant damaged mitochondrial DNA bases and increases in the levels of mtDNA nicks and blunt-ended breaks. Highly damaged mitochondria are characterized by having very low membrane potentials, increased superoxide/hydrogen peroxide production, and extensively damaged mtDNA and proteins. These mitochondria appear to have undergone a permeability transition, an observation supported by the five-fold increase in Caspase-3 activity observed after Thimerosal treatment.
1
The Koch brothers and SCOTUS don't care about you or your children. We exist to increase their profit margin. Period.
If we can't breathe, there are multitudes with whom we can be replaced; and when they can't breathe, there are more desperate people waiting to be exploited for profit and then discarded.
Common sense doesn't have a chance against greed.
If we can't breathe, there are multitudes with whom we can be replaced; and when they can't breathe, there are more desperate people waiting to be exploited for profit and then discarded.
Common sense doesn't have a chance against greed.
1
Why do conservatives love pollution? Don't they have children too? What's 8 billion? Chump change for the price of getting mercury out of the air. The 5 justices think like 19th century plutocrats, dirty smoke stacks are 'progress' to them, who cares the cost in environmental damage and personal sickness.
110
They love money more
This court will always support republican corporate interests (period). The reason for "punishing costs" is the fact that coal corporations refused to accept the fact that the emissions where damaging the environment so they refused to do anything about it. If those costs had been factored in over a decade, let's say, this would be a moot issue. Instead, they would rather spend many millions fighting the EPA. Talk about cost-benefit analysis! Ha. They would not respect that either. They would just keep fighting. Public health hazards mean nothing to these people. I wonder where they get the air they breathe?
321
Sorry Brian, but I couldn't resist. You mean a soot issue, don't you?
Was it Republican corporate interests that made them uphold Obamacare? How is this an NYT top comment?
Spend millions to fight the EPA or spend billions to get inline with new regulations. Seems like fighting for millions makes more sense. Clearly, you did not read the case, but doesn't stop you from making things up and having a strong opinion on something you don't know much about. It was a really discreet issue being addressed.
Spend millions to fight the EPA or spend billions to get inline with new regulations. Seems like fighting for millions makes more sense. Clearly, you did not read the case, but doesn't stop you from making things up and having a strong opinion on something you don't know much about. It was a really discreet issue being addressed.
Brian...did we do a cost benefit analysis on banning asbestos
last time looked...some of America's major companies were driven into bankruptcy over this issue
maybe when we review cost/benefit...we should have allowed them...to continue to manufacture...certain death to only a few thousand...as they made billions
last time looked...some of America's major companies were driven into bankruptcy over this issue
maybe when we review cost/benefit...we should have allowed them...to continue to manufacture...certain death to only a few thousand...as they made billions
Nothing like a good lungful of mercury in the morning. Your kids are already dying from it, so nothing left to lose.
16
Well, if they are not aborted first, then they wouldn't be affected.
Cost-Benefit Analysis has always been weak on the cost side because many "costs" are considered externalities, and economic value ($$$$) of externalities is not part of the equation. Examples would include suffering from pollution, the loss of habitat, diseases caused by eating chemically-laden fish, etc. In Wisconsin, the DNR has issued a fishing eating advisory that covers ALL 15,000+ lakes and 1000's of streams within the state. Why? Mercury from coal burning power plants. What is the dollar cost of that?
So weak is C/B analysis, I am surprised the justices were so easily fooled.
So weak is C/B analysis, I am surprised the justices were so easily fooled.
17
You know, I believe it was H. G. Wells, who over a century ago, wrote a sci'fi work about aliens attacking earth. Why don't you read it and see what killed the aliens and saved the earth. Mankind has always adjusted to and overcome most problems it has faced. It will overcome this problem. There is always a downside to anything.
Let there be no doubt that the labor and environmental "regulations" of the People's Republic of China are what American conservatives would like to see implemented in the USA. If these people get their way, soon the air in Chicago and Seattle will be as choked with smog as a typical day in Beijing or Shanghai.
9
You're so wrong. Just not much peripheral vision or thought on your part. One thing conservatives are is open minded. If you can make a better mouse trap, etc. If we took your liberal avenue, we would still be in B.C. Uh oh, that means before 1 A. D. No religious implications intended.
Scalia is against the Court legislating except when he isn't. The law says nothing about considering costs, and the courts are supposed to defer to agency interpretations.
35
The greatest victim of nuclear energy is Japan, which also embraced it. Other countries should too.
We need to quickly come to terms with the fact that nuclear energy is the means at hand to produce the huge volumes of electricity we need -- as well as the huge volumes of hydrogen for transportation.
Yes, more conservation will help, and so will more wind and solar. But as of yet these cannot assure us abundant volumes. Even if someday they could, it is foolish to pin all of our hopes on them -- to the neglect of the true and tried.
Getting it wrong on climate change affects our survival; and here we cannot afford to get anything wrong.
We need to quickly come to terms with the fact that nuclear energy is the means at hand to produce the huge volumes of electricity we need -- as well as the huge volumes of hydrogen for transportation.
Yes, more conservation will help, and so will more wind and solar. But as of yet these cannot assure us abundant volumes. Even if someday they could, it is foolish to pin all of our hopes on them -- to the neglect of the true and tried.
Getting it wrong on climate change affects our survival; and here we cannot afford to get anything wrong.
6
Maybe we need to rethink our "need" for abundant energy. Do we really need: gadgets galore that don't really help us but make us dumber and lazier? Do we need every appliance to be on stand-by? To have giant McMansions lit up like Christmas trees? Business districts with more lights that the sun?
Sound thinking. Yes, nuclear energy is the way to go. Climate change will be produce by the sun and weather conditions. When it rains, CO2 is washed from the air and blends back into the earth. Nature has a wonderful way of taking care of things. And, always will. It is those who want to control everyone else lives and ways who are the dangerous ones.
Not considered, I'm sure, is the human cost of the form of insidious pollution these toxic emissions. Yes, one would think that common sense might prevail over irresponsible business practices, but ethic ought to weigh in as well. Such is not the case for many industrial giants bent on maximizing profits at the expense of the defenseless.
8
This is not as bad as it seems. A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis would be a tremendously powerful tool in making the case against pollution. Many people govern by spreadsheet. Using their methodology against them takes away their arguments. Common sense reasoning is great, but having a few numbers to back it up never hurts.
9
In Obama's first book he explained his vote against Roberts for the Supreme Court. Roberts had spent his entire career representing businesses and Obama felt that he would invariably favor businesses over the individual. He was right.
107
Yes, that was the old Obama.
On par with Citizens United as one of the worst outcomes for the Supreme Court to foist on Americans.
16
The Obama administration argued that air pollutants like mercury and arsenic are associated with birth defects, cancer and other risks, especially for pregnant women and children. They say coal and oil fired power plants are the single biggest contributor to mercury contamination of rivers and lakes.
6
If the Court shuns it's duty to be a good steward of this planet, then it is up to the people to continue to support the movement away from toxic fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, etc. Someone needs to mind this store!
8
"If the Court shuns it's duty to be a good steward of this planet..." Uhmmm - that is not the Court's duty. Its duty was to look at the regulation and decide if the EPA usurped power not granted to it in the original bill from Congress and made too broad a regulation. Disagree with the result if you want, but you are missing how the process works.
And you are right, it is up to the people to support the environment and move away from "toxic fossil fuels." That is OUR job. Not the Court's job.
And you are right, it is up to the people to support the environment and move away from "toxic fossil fuels." That is OUR job. Not the Court's job.
Grass roots efforts are well under way and will lead us in a positive direction. The fossil fuel industry is fighting back and winning a lot of concessions, but will be losing the fight as time goes on. An article in the Santa Fe New Mexican this morning reported that many more solar arrays on our schools are planned. PNM which powers much of NM is trying to convince us that their fossil fuel plan is the best way forward here in the land of endless sunshine and wind. They are having a difficult time proving that the numbers add up now that solar is becoming very competitive.
1
Whether before or after, the cost-benefit analysis is clearly and unambiguously on the side of regulating power plants. This ruling essentially declares that power companies and the fossil fuel industry can continue to profit at the expense of the health of everyone down wind - and that's not even including the effects of climate change.
8
It is not just environmentalists who lost with this decision - it is all of us. I don't know what it will take for everyone to get serious about environmental damage - we are in the 6th great extinction right now; scientists from 3 American universities have stated we are at risk of extinction ourselves within 3 generations if we don't clean up our act, and the damage from climate change has already begun. But these costs don't matter? These costs are so high they cannot be calculated.
You can't breathe profits. You can't eat money. You can't drink gold.
Fundamentally, the idea that needs to change is that Man is superior to all other living creatures, and thus separate. The idea that needs to change is because Man is superior, he must have dominion and can do whatever he wants to the Earth. If Man is superior, than the laws of physics, atmospherics, chemistry and biology do not apply to us - so we won't face any consequences for our shortsighted and selfish destruction of our home. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The indigenous tribes respected the idea that all life is sacred and lived in right relationship with other creatures. That's what we need to do.
You can't breathe profits. You can't eat money. You can't drink gold.
Fundamentally, the idea that needs to change is that Man is superior to all other living creatures, and thus separate. The idea that needs to change is because Man is superior, he must have dominion and can do whatever he wants to the Earth. If Man is superior, than the laws of physics, atmospherics, chemistry and biology do not apply to us - so we won't face any consequences for our shortsighted and selfish destruction of our home. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The indigenous tribes respected the idea that all life is sacred and lived in right relationship with other creatures. That's what we need to do.
11
The news report begs the question "benefits to whom?" It doesn't sound like the cost was actually in dispute. It's hard to imagine that the plaintiffs and the EPA could be so far apart on the question of the benefits unless they had a fundamental disagreement on who was being benefitted and what was the nature of the benefits being conferred. It also sounds like this case is ripe for a second round of litigation between the downwind states and the source states.
8
Anytime Scalia writes the majority opinion, the court has failed. Shame on Roberts and Kennedy for caving on this one. They've just reaffirmed the GOP as the "Pollution Party" and an instrument of the fossil fuel industry.
115
NO, they confirmed that the GOP does not care about people's health only corporate profits. You see it in every issue.
"Any time Scalia writes the majority opinion, the court has failed." I couldn't have said it any better myself! Of course it might be remiss not to include Alibi-Alito and Uncle Thomas as well.
This is a win for the everyman.
Yes, we should be addressing climate change and pollution, but not at the costs we've been asked to front. The solution to our environmental problems shouldn't be vapid extremes of either tens of billions in costs paid for by me and you, or no action at all. Instead, this problem requires a carefully chartered course of change, and it requires the development of alternatives that can actually function on our power grid!
Entrepreneurs - start your engines!
Yes, we should be addressing climate change and pollution, but not at the costs we've been asked to front. The solution to our environmental problems shouldn't be vapid extremes of either tens of billions in costs paid for by me and you, or no action at all. Instead, this problem requires a carefully chartered course of change, and it requires the development of alternatives that can actually function on our power grid!
Entrepreneurs - start your engines!
41
I disagree. A bad day for the environment and business.
I good day for due process.
I good day for due process.
2
Unless you believe the 'everyman' makes his living from owning stocks or is a CEO then this ruling only helps corporate polluters get away with polluting. The 'everyman' doesn't cause the pollution but has to live with it. You may think that businesses that save money on costs of doing business would pass those reduced costs on to the consumer but, unfortunately, they don't. Rather, they just pad their financial statements with the cost cuts, take more profits that are hardly taxed, if at all, and they prop up the stocks price to keep the stockholders happy and the CEOs richer than rich.
5
Not quite 'everyman'. Only the wealthy can choose to live far enough from the polluting power plants while most of the rest of us have no choice. Retrofitting power plants to remove mercury and other toxins saves lives and billions in health care costs. The necessary modifications provide jobs and their costs will be spread among the broad base of customers. Most people would rather pay a few more dollars for electricity than suffer the horrible consequences of breathing toxic air.
2
Well, I guess now it's up to the PEOPLE in each and every state to continue fighting to preserve (or create) clean air and preserve their right to pursue happiness in a healthy natural environment.
11
I'd like to see the four words that Justice Antonin Scalia based his decision on.
9
Ask the nearest hippie.
1
Has the Left side of the bench EVER voted outside their block? Ever?
6
I guess you mean that they are people of principle. Now your friends and family know people with principles present a problem to you. Have fun with your toxic emissions, Hoze.
4
Their consistency could be be because they're not idiots.
1
On this issue the "left" side of the bench is 75% women, and because women have to deal with male hubris 24/7/365, they are perhaps privy to insights enabled by perspectives so shaped. Only when humans can see beyond their anthropocentrism will the species be able to act on climate change and perhaps save the planet, so there may be a connection here that your glib categorization ignores. Women--who are generally connected to children in depths and breadths that surpass men--are perhaps factoring in lives of children seven generations hence, if the species is still around.
2
"Industry groups and some 20 states challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its regulations would impose."
Really, how about the health threat cost from TOXIC polutants to millions of PEOPLE. I guess the SCOTUS considers corporate people more important than the health and welfare of millions of HUMANs!
Really, how about the health threat cost from TOXIC polutants to millions of PEOPLE. I guess the SCOTUS considers corporate people more important than the health and welfare of millions of HUMANs!
84
The justices blocked Obamas tyrannical use of the EPA.
That is what happened.
That is what happened.
It was a give-me for those that hated the gay rights and affordable care act rulings this week. Throw the dogs a bone.....
16
I think you're far too idealistic about big business and gay rights. Look at the estimates of the business/money made in New York State in the year following the legalization of marriage for all, and I doubt that Big Pharma and the Health Care Industry are suffering great losses due to ACA. After all they wrote the law
"Industry groups and some 20 states challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its regulations would impose."
Okay, then let's use this ruling as a precedent for the U.S. to reduce our gargantuan military costs* and stay out of wars and because of of the "punishing costs" (including death and destruction) such wars cause.
*The U.S. spends as much on its military as the 13 next highest military spending countries combined. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-ch...
Okay, then let's use this ruling as a precedent for the U.S. to reduce our gargantuan military costs* and stay out of wars and because of of the "punishing costs" (including death and destruction) such wars cause.
*The U.S. spends as much on its military as the 13 next highest military spending countries combined. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-ch...
79
Complaining about military spending is completely stupid. We should be the number one far and away in military spending.
Maybe if these coal plants had to pay the medial bills of the people they are making sick from the emissions, the cost/benefit analysis would change.
128
Just when I was feeling good about the Supreme Court. Have a blisteringly hot and/or storm-devastated summer, everyone! Wave your flags on the Fourth of July, cheer the Corporate States of America, and hope you - and the ones you love - can make it to the next one.
59
The finding in favor of gay marriage costs their corporate masters nothing. There was no monetary gain or loss in the ruling on gay marriage. Not so with this ruling. We Americans are always sold to the highest bidder. What it costs us in health, wealth and safety is of little consequence to the five jokers in the supreme court, lower case definitely intended since there is nothing "supreme" about these misanthropes. Corporate profit is paramount. We're just collateral damage.
4
EPA needs to do its job better. Sounds like they dropped the ball on not doing a real cost benefit analysis. Just relying on what is "right" is not good enough when others think you are wrong (and those others have the resources to fight you in court). Just because some of us think a regulation is good does not mean that government entities do not have do be effective in executing their job responsibilities.
8
When you do a cost benefit analysis, the cost of mitigation is simple to calculate, but the cost to health can only be an educated guess. Measuring adverse health effects is complex and includes chronic long term disabilities that could come from any number of sources. This being said, a conservative judge that can't think beyond the wallet will always side with the profit maker.
5
Cost benefit analysis? What is the cost of not being able to breathe?
The EPA could do a thousand such studies but the outcome would still be the same- we need to reduce burning of coal. This is simply a delay tactic to keep our energy use in the 19th century and to keep the kings of coal ever richer.
Once again, the SCOTUS 5 right wingers return to their true self- on the side of the rich and powerful.
I am sure these coal barons think they live safely away in pollution free environments, but in the end, no matter how rich you are- you still need to be able to breathe. Greed wins again. Thanks SCOTUS- for nothing.
The EPA could do a thousand such studies but the outcome would still be the same- we need to reduce burning of coal. This is simply a delay tactic to keep our energy use in the 19th century and to keep the kings of coal ever richer.
Once again, the SCOTUS 5 right wingers return to their true self- on the side of the rich and powerful.
I am sure these coal barons think they live safely away in pollution free environments, but in the end, no matter how rich you are- you still need to be able to breathe. Greed wins again. Thanks SCOTUS- for nothing.
146
Great ruling - nobody needs to breathe anyway.
493
They'll be selling us oxygen tanks - when the corporations figure out how to profit from the sale of breathable air, all will be well. You'll have to pay to breathe.
4
Well, people need to breathe, but not breathing is cheaper--so better.
2
as you continue to breathe without issue...
Once again, this court is shortsighted, political and wrong.
144
The cost of keeping the environment clean and healthy.
Asbestos was OK in the day, too. Now look.
Asbestos was OK in the day, too. Now look.
99
DDT as well.
The article should correct the following misstatement: The court did not rule EPA needs to do a "cost-benefit analysis," rather that EPA needs to take costs into consideration in promulgating their hazardous air pollutant regulations for power plants.
15
Which in effect means that the EPA has to do a cost-benefit analysis, since any analysis will be subject to challenge, and one not done by the EPA will be under greater challenge.
1
I may be wrong but I do not see anything here to keep the EPA from starting over and getting to the same point.
The court just ruled that the EPA should follow the proper steps, in the proper order.
The court just ruled that the EPA should follow the proper steps, in the proper order.
64
I was gonna say...
2
Dan
What you are missing is that in order to do the analysis, Congress has to appropriate funds to pay for that work.
If the Republicans pass finding bills that curtail EPA's authority to spend money on such studies, they will NEVER be done and there will be no "legal" way to reign in the polluters.
Simple enough. Follow the money.
What you are missing is that in order to do the analysis, Congress has to appropriate funds to pay for that work.
If the Republicans pass finding bills that curtail EPA's authority to spend money on such studies, they will NEVER be done and there will be no "legal" way to reign in the polluters.
Simple enough. Follow the money.
9
Knowing well that it is very likely the next President will abandon the whole thing.
Once again the furious 4 are on the wrong side of common sense and history.
What is the matter with Anthony Kennedy here?
What we need to do is make the members of SCOTUS and Congress live outside their bubble
From now on allow people to carry guns into those buildings, and put a power plant emitting toxins right next door. Then see how long it takes for them to re-think cost - benefit ratios.
What is the matter with Anthony Kennedy here?
What we need to do is make the members of SCOTUS and Congress live outside their bubble
From now on allow people to carry guns into those buildings, and put a power plant emitting toxins right next door. Then see how long it takes for them to re-think cost - benefit ratios.
281
Coal is on the way out regardless. These EPA rules would have quickened that. Since SCOTUS cannot do it, then we the people need to demand our power from cleaner sources. Seattle needs to hold firm that WY cannot ship its Powder River Basin coal to China from their ports. And if 'monkey wrenching' is needed, so be it.
9
Cathy, they live in the Washington, DC metropolitan region and believe me, the air is quite adequately polluted by auto exhaust and the smokestacks of local coal-burning power plants. They still don't get it. The power companies apparently own the air, water and soil and are free to pollute it at will.
4
What about the cost/benefit of the current SCOTUS? Not very efficient, let's get rid of them?
1
"The good earth -- we could have saved it but we were too damned cheap." -- Kurt Vonnegut
360
All you rejoicers in Roberts' reasoning, he's the same corporate tool he's always been. Figure out which side is the bigger win for bigger corporations, and he's on it. Great photo by Luke Sharrett, but that is about all the joy a human can take from this news article.
115
I guess the Supreme Court has become the Republican death panel, instructing EPA to decide which lives should be saved.
6
The five male corporate catholic majority on OUR Supreme Court of the United States is back at it. No control on coal plant emissions. Great news for the money masters who control OUR coal resources, not so good for all those whose loved ones died of black lung disease and the rest of us who want clean air. Now they're going to take on affirmative action for educational fairness in Texas - home of chief justice Roberts major benefactors, Ted Cruz,the Bush family et al. He knows why he was hired. According to Wikipedia, "Cruz recruited future Chief Justice John Roberts and noted attorney Mike Carvin to the Bush legal team.[44]" I guess money speaks louder than his pope except when it comes to women's rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
1
Is SCOTUS trying to tell us that breathing poison is OK? More seriously, I suppose this is a job for Congress, but they are not interested since their sugar daddies such as the Koch Bros. are deep into producing pollution
220
"Is the Supreme Court trying to tell us that breathing poison is OK?"
It is a great question. but I think the answer is no. The Supreme Court is trying to tell us that industry profits are more beneficial to the society than eliminating individual costs. Or in other words, short term share holder maximization, and *maybe* prevention of job losses are more important overall than my desire not to die from emphysema. After all, I am just one person, and not all that valuable.
It is a great question. but I think the answer is no. The Supreme Court is trying to tell us that industry profits are more beneficial to the society than eliminating individual costs. Or in other words, short term share holder maximization, and *maybe* prevention of job losses are more important overall than my desire not to die from emphysema. After all, I am just one person, and not all that valuable.
8
Not only the law, but common sense, would dictate doing a cost benefit analysis.
70
The benefit is not poisoning all of us. In that case what does the cost matter?
5
Do cost/benefit analyses figure in the costs of human illness or death, or the costs of quality of life lost? The billions lost in degraded environmental quality? Nope. Cutting up the world into little pieces and putting a price tag on everything is wrong. The world should not be run by economists.
6
Next time you have a medical emergency remember to ask the doctor for a cost benefit analysis before deciding whether he should save you.
13
This a particularly weird and twisted piece of legislative interpretation given the aims of the Act are clear and well known. Only in America.