Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Supreme Court curtails more ambitious aspects of EPA's greenhouse gas regulations

Comments

Return To Article
  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 24, 2014 6:29 a.m.

    It is interesting how the DN and others of their political persuasion are attempting to claim victory in yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court. Yesterday's decision was the third time in a decade that the court sided wit the EPA in restricting greenhouse-gas emissions. It probably will not be the last.

    Those who oppose the EPA's approach to cutting emissions will have to actually do something creative, like proposing new legislation, instead of relying on the courts to do their bidding. If the critics want something better, they need to abandon the refusal to address climate change, that has prevailed in Congress, and propose a more economically rational strategy. Doing nothing is not an option.

    The DN claims this is "another example in which the Obama administration has found it more convenient to impose administrative rules than to vet ideas through the people’s representatives."

    President Obama has had to use administrative rules for the simple desire to get something done rather than wait for the doing nothing Congress to act. His previous attempts to "vet ideas through the people’s representatives" have been met with total silence from the other side. They made their bed.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 24, 2014 6:49 a.m.

    It is refreshing to see that the Conservative American Supreme Court actualy made a reasonable ruling in a major case of great importance to Americans.

    Only Alito and Thomas, the most Reactionary "Conservative" of this bunch, held out according to their stubbornly reactionary "principles."

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 24, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    Re: ". . . local economies can suffer as plants are forced to shut down . . . . [but] the state suffers from regular bouts with high concentrations of polluted air that exacerbates health problems and may harm tourism."

    And, of course, it seems to completely escape the writer, that taxing and regulating carbon has absolutely nothing to do with air pollution. As well as the fact that the visible components of "polluted air" in inversions along the Wasatch Front are composed almost entirely of naturally-occurring, environmentally benign particulates, not carbon dioxide or noxious chemicals.

    It's remarkable how these completely unsupported and unsupportable socialist memes from the radical environmental left have been permitted, even encouraged, to permeate what passes for rational political discussion in certain American media.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 24, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    "Significantly, this week’s decision does not affect the EPA’s proposed new rules designed to cut carbon emissions nationwide by 30 percent by 2030."

    In fact, it reinforced the EPAs right and authority to regulate these. The attempt here to say this was a rejection of Obama policy or practices is absurd and again a silly political stunt. Day in and out government agencies struggle to comply with the intent of laws written, sometimes more than a decade ago, and apply today's situation to those laws. Often laws and conditions don't always easily mesh together nicely. When the pieces don't fit nicely together, it is not an indication nefarious intent. It hasn't during previous administrations, and it doesn't now. It is a matter of interpretation, which we see here among those who post regularly, people interpret intent differently all the time.

    Everyone interprets law, or even the gospel, through the lens of their own personal bias. This does not mean they are trying to break the law, nor change the gospel. It is silly to presume so.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    This is the third time that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions. So can we lay off of all the "Obama is being a dictator" nonsense?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 24, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    " it seems to completely escape the writer, that taxing and regulating carbon has absolutely nothing to do with air pollution".

    So... per this, are we to assume other taxes equally don't impact consumer behavior? How does that work? "Sin" taxes are also equally ineffective? Tax incentives towards business - ineffective? Or is it taxes with regard to carbon are the only ones that are pointless.

    Or should I read this even more narrowly, that "carbon has absolutely nothing to do with air pollution". Is that what is being proposed here. Burning carbon fuels has nothing to do with pollution?

    Either way, I don't get it. Even most conservatives acknowledge that tax policy impacts demand for products. Even the most ardent denier acknowledges burning carbon based fuels creates pollution. So I am really lost by this statement.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    June 24, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    I look at the size of the USA in comparison to other country's and how far away they are. Makes me think that their ego is the problem. I figure that even if all the air polluting plants was out sourced, we'll steal have the same air floating over us. I think that haze is moisture in the air from evaporation, dust in the air is from the wind, forest fires will put smoke in the air.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 24, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    Re: "So can we lay off of all the "Obama is being a dictator" nonsense?"

    Sure. As soon as Obama lays off being a dictator.

    And, it'll be interesting to see what happens when a new, more intelligent, more America-friendly, and less radical Congress and/or President begins dismantling all these dangerous, feckless Obama regulations.

    Here's betting radical liberals will then demand that we carve Obama's harmful regulations into stone and carry them up to Mount Sinai, rather than acknowledge a new President and a new Congress have the same authority they claim for their Anointed One.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    I agree... the LEGISLATURE writes law (NOT the EPA). If the EPA want's new laws or regulations... they should come to Congress and convince a majority of OUR representatives (not write their own).

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    Re: Procuradorfiscal "And, of course, it seems to completely escape the writer, that taxing and regulating carbon has absolutely nothing to do with air pollution. "

    Not true! Coal is a dirty fuel the burning of which introduces a wide variety of pollutants including mercury and even radiation (uranium is found in coal in abundance). Carbon tax leads to less coal burning leads to less of these other harmful substances.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    RE: Procuradorfiscal "Here's betting radical liberals will then demand that we carve Obama's harmful regulations into stone and carry them up to Mount Sinai, rather than acknowledge a new President and a new Congress have the same authority they claim for their Anointed One."

    A fine piece of creative writing, but we should be aware that all this stuff about Obama's dictatorship is coming from a well-funded campaign (by the Kochs and others) to attack him.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 24, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    2 bits - "... the LEGISLATURE writes law (NOT the EPA). If the EPA want's new laws or regulations... they should come to Congress and convince a majority of OUR representatives (not write their own)."

    Apparently you don't understand the nature of this case. It was not the EPA that brought this case trying to expand their reach, it was industry who tried to stop the EPa from regulating greenhouse gas. Justice Antonin Scalia put it for the majority, the EPA got "almost everything it wanted."

    So it is not the EPA but industry that needs to "come to Congress and convince a majority of OUR representatives."

    procuradorfiscal - "Here's betting radical liberals will then demand ...rather than acknowledge a new President and a new Congress have the same authority they claim for their Anointed One.

    A recent poll conducted for the nonprofit Civil Society Institute (CSI) and Environmental Working Group (EWG)showed that 94 percent of Americans – including 92 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of Independents, and 98 percent of Democrats – want political leadership on balancing calls for more energy production in U.S. while protecting clean water and air. It seems the "Anointed One" has won a few opinions.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 24, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    The most interesting part of yesterday's ruling was Scalia's opinion.

    One observation: "The curious wording in the majority opinion will confuse people on exactly who won".

    If that ruling was a victory for opponents of the EPA, I'll take it!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    I hope when the left has done their job... and there are no new jobs being created in the United States, and many of the jobs these posters currently have are gone (because without reliable and abundant energy we can't produce what we used to)... these posters are as happy as they are now.

    It's fun to pump the fist, and chant the chants, when it's all rhetoric. But when the rhetoric becomes reality, and coal power is gone, and many of our jobs are gone (because some companies can't pay the skyrocketing utility prices)... we are happy sitting at home ready the paper and posting our leftist rhetoric, while wondering where the jobs we used to do went.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    RE: 2 bits "we are happy sitting at home ready the paper and posting our leftist rhetoric, while wondering where the jobs we used to do went."

    Item: last month was the hottest May on record globally. If we do nothing about global warming will our posterity be happy with biological extinction?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 24, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    Re: ". . . we should be aware that all this stuff about Obama's dictatorship is coming from a well-funded campaign (by the Kochs and others) to attack him."

    Yeah? So?

    Obama is rightly being attacked for the unconstitutional dictator he has become. Why should I [or Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi, for that matter] obsess over who funds a truthful attack?

    Liberals never seem to care much that nearly all attacks on conservatives are funded by Soros-backed organizations.

    And, they're not even true.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    Re: Procuradorfiscal "It's remarkable how these completely unsupported and unsupportable socialist memes from the radical environmental left..."

    And lastly, this statement demonstrates that you, Procuradorfiscal, have no idea who is doing what in the environmental movement. I am a professional environmental economist. I state this not to brag but to certify I know something about what is going on. Virtually the entire body of environmental economics theory is built on top of the neoclassical economic model, which assumes a capitalist system. Almost all environmentalists and environmental economists are NOT LEFTIST. I am an exception.

    The theory I teach is neoclassical, not Marxist. Understand I don't shun the leftist label. I am proud of it. But to call environmentalists leftist because you don't like their conclusions is inaccurate and lends little credibility to your arguments.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    @2bits
    "If the EPA want's new laws or regulations... they should come to Congress and convince a majority of OUR representatives (not write their own)."

    Congress gave them authority to write the regulations (within certain limits, which is why the Supreme Court didn't allow everything).

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    Congress giving the un-elected EPA the authority to write it's own laws and regulations that apply to us... is a sweeeet deal.

    I wish Congress would give ME (and the rest of the people) the authority to write our own regulations. That would be sweeet. Never have to submit to a vote of the people... and you get to do the job of Congress... SWEEET!

    Even if the people don't like what you're doing... WHO CARES! You never have to submit to a vote of the people.

    You are like a Czar (in Russia). Never elected, but given authority by the rulers to write your own laws and do whatever you think you need to do... And never have to answer to the people at election time!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 24, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    Re: ". . . to call environmentalists leftist because you don't like their conclusions is inaccurate and lends little credibility to your arguments."

    Not to attempt one-upmanship, but I also have a no small insight into the issue, as an environmental lawyer. From long experience, I can tell you that professed "environmentalists" are, to a man, leftist. That they may fall along the continuum somewhere to the right of someone that admits embracing marxist bases of their personal economics theory is true, but real people easily recognize them as leftists.

    I don't call environmentalists leftists because I don't like their conclusions. I call them leftists because they are leftists. They espouse one or another planned, centralized economy as their model of economics. One in which decisions are made, not by the invisible hand, but by small group of elitist overlords.

    Whether models dictate every behavioral element, or merely a tax-spend scheme that torques markets in arbitrary, unnatural directions amounts to quibbling over minutiae. It's still elitist, leftist thinking that always has -- always will -- produce catastrophe for the real people that are left completely out of the argument.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    June 24, 2014 3:36 p.m.

    I recently heard that the major group in society that did not accept Climate Change was the 50 plus males! If you wondered the truth of the statement then look ate the opinion section of DM!

    The EPA have made a step forward to reverse the damage of in-efficient power production. This will drive innovation in power production and create new jobs.

    We could reduce power consumption by simply improving efficiency in homes and the work place. Our community recently replaced old street lights with new T5 tubes increasing light and reducing power use by 30% Win Win

  • stevo123 slc, ut
    June 24, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    Re.Procuradorfiscal, I love those benign particles! It is why I have to leave the valley in January. Funny thing soon as I get where I am going, I can quit my asthma meds.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    I also don't call someone a "Leftist" just because I don't like their conclusion.

    I don't think being a "Leftist" is an insult. It's just as noble as being on the "Right". It's just a different perspective...

    I call someone a "Leftist" when their comments indicate they prefer less freedom for people to make their own decisions (good OR bad)... and instead prefer government make the tough decisions for them (by way of laws, regulations, and government controllers or bureaus to oversee our behavior (instead of trusting the people).

    "Left" is not always right. And Right is not always "right". We need both. It's not an insult to be either. The problem is... when you assume one or the other is ALWAYS "right". Then it's Dogma.

    We need SOME regulation. We also need some individual liberty. It's not black or white. It's a continuum and an infinite spectrum of both. But you can get WAY out on the Left (OR the Right) and it becomes bad.

    Both sides can get too radical.

    Look up the history and definition of "Leftist". It's not all bad.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 24, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    I wonder how many of these "Global Warming" deniers --
    and Light Bulb legislation haters
    now have at least 1 CFL or LED light in their own homes?

    My guess is they do,
    and
    My guess is they LIKE them!

    I began replacing my old incandescent bulbs years ago -
    one by one
    as they burned out.

    I did the math,
    and found that they have paid for themselves and them some.

    Each LED installed paid for itself in less than 6 months.
    I save on average $1 per month, per bulb.

    So - 30 bulbs per month = $30 saved X 12 months is almost $400 a year!

    Enough to pay for family vacations,
    New entertainment center,
    or
    give even more in my Offerings [because, I'm a Bleeding Heart].

    God Blesses me,
    I feel obliged to pass it along...

  • Stable thought FORT MORGAN, CO
    July 6, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal....amen to your profound comments.