can any lawbro explain to me or link to me a deeper explanation of this EPA decision? didn’t congress already give the EPA the ability to regulate greenhouse gases, and this was upheld multiple times by the sc?
we’re so fucked. we’re so so so so so fucked. the despair i feel today is far more than any other decision, weirdly. we were already careening over the edge of irreversible and catastrophic climate change in my own life time, now we seem to have also edward 40hands’d our way down while gleefully laughing about “owning the libs.”
like what’s the recourse here? like actually what is the play? it’s fucked.
not a lawbro but I believe the explanation is “fuck you, that’s why”. Pretty much they’re saying Congress has to explicitly authorize every little thing or the executive can’t do it, or at least that’s the end game. And of course Congress isn’t and never was set up to do that, so the only viable option left is to ignore rulings from the court but Biden is a coward and won’t do that.
wut? you know we’re literally in a new mass extinction event at this moment, right? you know even if we’re setting the bar of when to do something as being an “existential” threat to humanity alone, that if we went from multiple billions of humans down to even a 10th of that over any imaginable stretch of time, the consequences would be horrific? I’m not sure what the point of this post is.
I guess I’ll just do what everyone else seems to be doing and console myself that my upper middleclass income will (hopefully) spare me the effects of the worst of it, vow not to reproduce, and hopefully die of some completely preventable illness in my 50’s.
I make a big effort not to read screen names when I read posts or reply to them, and if I do, i’m very unlikely to remember much about the poster in question unless I am personally friends with them
Politics is just a game for him. I mean to a certain extent it probably is for most of us but some people lack empathy and I suppose it’s hard to conceive of something so immense that it’s coming for all of us one way or another no matter how well off we are. Some of us will be fortunate enough that the effects may be relatively minimal, but maybe not depending how bad it gets and how fast it gets there.
Basically they’re saying Congress needs to pass a law specifying that greenhouses are regulated, and not argue that greenhouse gasses fall under one of the (to them) vague categories that the EPA has authorization to. Like all things it really comes down to Calvinball. How vague is too vague? Don’t you want to be a bit vague so you’re not having to pass a law for every little thing? Well that’s up the Supreme Court to decide, and don’t you know…
Of course. And spoiler alert, when Republicans regain the Presidency everything that admin does will be fine.
The right hates administrative agencies because they’re largely staffed with subject matter experts who care. Can’t have those people interfering in anything!
I guess I’m just in way more shock of this because at least I could sorta kinda console myself with roe v wade being a terrible workaround that rested on a house of cards that was ready to collapse at any moment we lost a court to shit like this. However, the EPA was like an ancient and well defined organization given congressional authority to regulate greenhouse gases for much longer than I’ve been alive and I can’t imagine how this kind of ruling is anything but total nonsense.
at least LEGALLY i can understand the anti roe opinions, even if i violently disagree with them - the epa’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases seemed pretty much set in stone until a few years ago.
Climate change is an existential threat to billions starving and wars being fought over resources and forced migrations. But yeah other than that NBD. Humankind will probably live on.
Unless I missed something jmakin didn’t actually say it was an existential threat to humanity. The closest he said to that is this:
I’m not sure this is even technically hyperbole. It’s certainly irreversible, and catastrophic is something that exists to degrees, but it’s difficult to dispute that that word catastrophic applies.
iron81 invented his own standard (“existential threat to humanity”) and says we don’t meet it, and realizing this should be “our play.” It’s hard to find any space between his position and right wing talking points.
it’s not hyperbole at all but I did give myself a lifespan of 2100 when I made this statement, 2150 is far more realistic for myself - so I’ll just say by the end of the century, which should affect all of us or someone we know in some way.
we’re consistently doing worse than even our most pessimistic models were predicting a while back and there’s no indication of it ever improving (because the world as a whole has been doing the complete opposite of what it shouldve been doing for the last 30 years)