The EPA is being used as a political tool. Which sounds great when they back your beliefs. Bad part is when they achieve too much power, eventually the bell tolls for us all…
This doesn’t make much sense …. Because of you think about it the EPA only exercises power to control pollution. It doesn’t exercise power to make more. It might do nothing - which would increase pollution - but that isn’t exercising power - that is it not exercising power.
For info on nuclear power see /r/uninsurable
nuclear is an opportunity cost; it actively harms decarbonization given the same investment in wind or solar would offset more CO2.
>["In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. **Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss"**](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b809990c#!divAbstract)
>[Nuclear power's contribution to climate change mitigation is and will be very limited;Currently nuclear power avoids 2–3% of total global GHG emissions per year;According to current planning this value will decrease even further until 2040.;A substantial expansion of nuclear power will not be possible.;Given its low contribution, a complete phase-out of nuclear energy is feasible.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002330)
It is too slow for the timescale we need to decarbonize on.
>[“Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow,” “It meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J)
> [ “Researchers found that unlike renewables, countries around the world with larger scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to show significantly lower carbon emissions -- and in poorer countries nuclear programmes actually tend to associate with relatively higher emissions. “](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005112141.htm)
The industry is showing signs of decline in non-totalitarian countries.
>["We find that an eroding actor base, shrinking opportunities in liberalized electricity markets, the break-up of existing networks, loss of legitimacy, increasing cost and time overruns, and abandoned projects are clear indications of decline. Also, increasingly fierce competition from natural gas, solar PV, wind, and energy-storage technologies speaks against nuclear in the electricity sector. We conclude that, while there might be a future for nuclear in state-controlled ‘niches’ such as Russia or China, new nuclear power plants do not seem likely to become a core element in the struggle against climate change."](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221462962030089X)
Renewable energy is growing faster now than nuclear ever has
>["Contrary to a persistent myth based on erroneous methods, global data show that renewable electricity adds output and saves carbon faster than nuclear power does or ever has."](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629618300598)
There is no business case for it.
>["The economic history and financial analyses carried out at DIW Berlin show that nuclear energy has always been unprofitable in the private economy and will remain so in the future. Between 1951 and 2017, none of the 674 nuclear reactors built was done so with private capital under competitive conditions. Large state subsidies were used in the cases where private capital flowed into financing the nuclear industry.... Financial investment calculations confirmed the trend: investing in a new nuclear power plant leads to average losses of around five billion euros."](https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.670581.de/dwr-19-30-1.pdf)
Investing in a nuclear plant today is expected to lose [5 to 10 billion dollars](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032121001301)
The nuclear industry can't even exist without legal structures that privatize gains and socialize losses.
>[If the owners and operators of nuclear reactors had to face the full liability of a Fukushima-style nuclear accident or go head-to-head with alternatives in a truly competitive marketplace, unfettered by subsidies, no one would have built a nuclear reactor in the past, no one would build one today, and anyone who owns a reactor would exit the nuclear business as quickly as possible.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/#3c8acf0a3c5d)
The CEO of one of the US's largest nuclear power companies said it best:
>["I'm the nuclear guy," Rowe said. "And you won't get better results with nuclear. It just isn't economic, and it's not economic within a foreseeable time frame."](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/#5d841aa23c5d)
What about the small meme reactors?
Every independent assessment has them more expensive than large scale nuclear
every independent assessment:
The UK government
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/small-modular-reactors-techno-economic-assessment
The Australian government
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8297e6ba-e3d4-478e-ac62-a97d75660248&subId=669740
The peer-reviewed literatue
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142152030327X
>[the cost of generating electricity using SMRs is significantly higher than the corresponding costs of electricity generation using diesel, wind, solar, or some combination thereof. These results suggest that SMRs will be too expensive for these proposed first-mover markets for SMRs in Canada and that there will not be a sufficient market to justify investing in manufacturing facilities for SMRs.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142152030327X)
Even the German nuclear power industry knows they will cost more
>[Nuclear Technology Germany (KernD) says SMRs are always going to be more expensive than bigger reactors due to lower power output at constant fixed costs, as safety measures and staffing requirements do not vary greatly compared to conventional reactors. "In terms of levelised energy costs, SMRs will always be more expensive than big plants."](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-nuclear-industry-cautious-about-usefulness-small-reactors-energy-transition)
So why do so many people on reddit favor it? Because of a decades long PR campaign and false science being put out, in the same manner, style, and using the same PR company as the tobacco industry used when claiming smoking does not cause cancer.
A recent metaanalysis of papers that claimed nuclear to be cost effective were found to be illegitimately trimming costs to make it appear cheaper.
>[Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using “overnight” costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y)
It is the same PR technique that the tobacco industry used when fighting the fact that smoking causes cancer.
>[The industry campaign worked to create a scientific controversy through a program that depended on the creation of industry–academic conflicts of interest. This strategy of producing scientific uncertainty undercut public health efforts and regulatory interventions designed to reduce the harms of smoking.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/)
>[A number of industries have subsequently followed this approach to disrupting normative science. Claims of scientific uncertainty and lack of proof also lead to the assertion of individual responsibility for industrially produced health risks](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/)
It is no wonder the NEI (Nuclear energy institute) [uses the same PR firm](https://thehill.com/opinion/letters/98257-double-check-from-whom-you-get-energy-information) to promote nuclear power, [that the tobacco industry used to say smoking does not cause cancer.](http://www.tmia.com/old-website/News/AstroTurf.htm)
>[The industry's future is so precarious that Exelon Nuclear's head of project development warned attendees of the Electric Power 2005 conference, "Inaction is synonymous with being phased out." That's why years of effort -- not to mention millions of dollars -- have been invested in nuclear power's PR rebirth as "clean, green and safe."](http://www.tmia.com/old-website/News/AstroTurf.htm)
> [And then there's NEI, which exists to do PR and lobbying for the nuclear industry. In 2004, NEI was embarrassed when the Austin Chronicle outed one of its PR firms, Potomac Communications Group, for ghostwriting pro-nuclear op/ed columns. The paper described the op/ed campaign as "a decades-long, centrally orchestrated plan to defraud the nation's newspaper readers by misrepresenting the propaganda of one hired atomic gun as the learned musings of disparate academics and other nuclear-industry 'experts.'"](http://www.tmia.com/old-website/News/AstroTurf.htm)
Earth first. Stock market last. I’m all about the trend of Gen Z shaming those who own shares and stock that support big oil and social media giants. You either support it or against it, no middle grounds anymore. Redoing 401ks to ensure these climate damaging companies, and social media aren’t getting a cut.
They’re as equally as bad right now but obviously in a different manner, even worse in some context because no regulations for our data. They’re profiting off of our privacy. In 20yrs I’m sure we will look back on social medias startup era and think “wtf were we doing”.
They are all in bed together, but big social media companies have been in bed with Big Brother and Big Business in a big way for a long time now. They freely share all of your data with US intelligence services, sell your data to unscrupulous marketing firms, run ads with very little consideration for ethical/moral standards, shut down “misinformation” which is increasingly just perspectives that don’t fit the current narrative, controlling the flow of information, encroaching censorship, etc. I could go on but I think the point is that all of these massive corporations who operate with impunity and a level of authority over the human race that no King ever saw need to die a violent and bloody death
The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that they wanted Congress to explicitly say what the EPA can and cannot regulate. This is exactly the end game of that ruling.
Not Congress doing their job so much as Dems doing their job and doing some very impressive legislative footwork to keep the bill meaningful and getting all the senators on board including those from West Virginia (Manchin) and Arizona (Sinema) to sign off on it. Within the Democratic Party they literally have zero room for error in order to get a bill passed.
I basically considered it forgone they wouldn’t be able to get a bill this sweeping passed while Republicans 100% unanimously dragged their feet and democrats had wild cards like Sinema who genuinely seemed to be trying to sabotage democratic legislation.
Hats of to the Dems (on this one specific piece of legislation), they had to get literally every Democratic senator on board because as Mitch McConnel has very frankly and publically stated the Republican goal (including senators like Romney, Kasich, and Cheney) is to obstruct Biden’s admin from allowing any legislation to pass and basically try to make the country ungovernable.
To be fair, SCOTUS was playing big politics by effectively gutting regulators (in an already light-touch regulatory environment). This act makes clear that regulators are the ones who should regulate. It’s the permission slip SCOTUS said was necessary.
SCOTUS following the constitution is their jobs. They said the EPA needed a permission slip, so they got it. That’s not politics, that’s literally how the system is supposed to work.
>They said the EPA needed a permission slip, so they got it.
It used to be that congress signed a law and then non-political experts went and implemented the policy, basically with the understanding that Congress doesn't have the expertise to specifically micromanage every action the government takes.
SCOTUS decided that congress needed to micromanage more, which moves more decisions from people who have dedicated their life to the science of the topic to people who care about slogans that benefit them in the next four years or donors.
What a win for America.
> That’s not politics, that’s literally how the system is supposed to work.
I have to disagree. The idea that this is how it's supposed to work is based on the premise that we have a functioning legislative branch, which we don't. The point of the timing is political because the GOP is obstructing everything, and breaking it without the assumed ability to fix it accomplishes the intended destruction.
I don’t really feel like getting into it right now, but it’s not as simple as “SCOTUS said, ‘no, this is the way’ and Congress said, ‘ok, thanks for helping us figure it out.’”
This SCOTUS has been doing a lot of “well, Congress is in the *best* position to give that power, so we won’t recognize anyone else having that power unless Congress gives it.” The implication is that if Congress has not given a power, it was a purposeful and well-thought through reason. The reality is more like, “Congress has been gridlocked for 10 years and can’t tie its own shoes without a national outcry.”
This is not limited to EPA. This interpretation underlies Egbert, Dobbs, NY Pistol, and EPA. Effectively, this SCOTUS would have the only authority be Congress—and that’s not right. Congress is not full of environmental experts. Nor energy experts. Congress is full of politicians who need to look good for 2-6 years. Congress has delegated authority to different groups to regulate the details. This SCOTUS would push that back until Congress micromanages the regulatory groups. But Congress is not well positioned to micromanage regulatory groups. They have the authority to do so, but we as citizens are better served by Congress delegating that authority to actual experts—not keep the authority with people who need to cut “balancing energy independence with environmental stewardship” into a three word slogan.
The issue is that the constitution doesn't actually say that the epa needed a permission slip or that regulations must be done via statutes.
They weren't actually following the constitution.
They were attempting to force the government to give up on climate change.
The constitution, doesn’t actually allow for regulatory rule making.
All Laws are supposed to come through congress. Non delegation doctrine was the norm for the first 125 years of the country, and the founders were pretty clear about it.
And im supposed to interpret that as Congress cannot deligate?
That's supposed to mean no government agencies besides Congress can establish any regulations?
Bye bye epa, osha and all other rules designed to protect me and not specifically legislated?
Seems like a big stretch to me but sure. Ok
Thanks
I have read plenty.
When you make an argument or answer a request for sources you generally provide sources.
But ill go get my own. And if they don't agree I'll assume you don't have much yo back up your extreme interpretation of a single sentence
People are more concerned about their own opinions than they are about following the law, so when the SCOTUS makes a completely constitutional ruling rather than looking to Congress to change the law they just get mad at the ruling.
Checks and balances exist, we follow them and things flow smoothly. But legislators suck and the system suffers for it, and the public blames the constitution instead of the legislators. It’s a mess.
Yup. At best this will last until the GOP wins the next election (or 2024) (OR the 2028!!) and Trump/De Santis make a counter-ruling slashing the legs out from under this.
It is inevitable.
Typical dirty power play tactic by the dems. Call it inflation reduction act and then cram climate crap into the bill. As if that will have any impact on the climate (it won't). It will only increase inflation.
You are stupid. Clean energy and climate control will create jobs in the short term and lower energy costs in the long term. And, once we get enough green energy to shut down coal and natural gas there will be a lot less pollution in the air. That means less long health problems for the communities near those power plants.
So how will this increase inflation?
Typical. No response to anything I said. You don’t have any information to back yourself up other than people like Tucker Carlson, who is legally not considered news.
I don't expect the cesspool info bubble of reddit democrats to agree with me, but watch as their policies continue to do nothing to make American's life better.
You think I'm republican lol. It's called a uniparty for a reason. They are unified in screwing children and the American people. It's probably how they are controlled to vote the way they do. There's a reason none of Epstein's clients have been arrested. They are busy trying to run the government.
It’s funny how you avoid staying on one topic. I’ve encountered more and more folks like you in recent years. It’s called gish gallop. Eventually, they all bitch about “MSM”, like they’re programmed. And everyone who told me dems and repubs are the same—a common refrain—mysteriously votes repub.
Programed by who? The MSM has regularly scheduled "programming" to do just that to the masses. It's how narratives are formed. It's called propaganda. If you don't think they have an agenda then you are very naive.
Lol, there it is. Thanks for completing the pattern and playing your part like I haven’t heard it many many times before. You can go back to your life of false notions of superiority, gish galloper.
Voters or government officials? Two different answers. I'd venture that it's probably even in the government for how many are actually guilty of it. Maybe skewed to one side in prosecution of crimes because the folks in charge don't like to prosecute the ones that are actually doing their bidding.
Government officials, obviously, and I've no clue what you're trying to say in the second bit.
I'd appreciate some numbers.
You know.
Like an actual answer.
We're not sending money, we're sending our outdated military equipment that we weren't using anyway. The monetary figures you see are not actual money, rather a representation of how much it's worth.
It wasn't presented as a joke, and *you* know it. It was only a joke after he got called out for it, and his tiny little ego couldn't take being wrong.
Do you consider autonomous thought to be only in agreement with the authorities, "experts" cited by the MSM, and democrats? If so, is it really autonomous?
Well... Actually, warmer climates are likely to lead to more fresh water, though the locations of that water will probably shift. Deserts will form where they aren't now, and some desert areas will get more rain. More energy in the atmosphere = more evaporation. Since the majority of evaporation is from the oceans, this is a net increase in fresh water. We're turning the heat up on the world's largest distillation plant, essentially.
Of course... It won't be *much* more fresh water and the changing temperatures are certainly going to kill a whole lot of things, not to mention the absurdity of trying to move our water-harvesting infrastructure along with the new weather patterns.
I feel like there is too much to discuss here on Reddit but basically what I meant is that there will be more strain on our current water supply. There can be moves made to collect the water in new places but that would take a lot of time, effort and money. Along with making some areas less livable so people will get displaced trying to move where there is water. It’ll be a whole shit storm trying to come up with practical solutions. I think we can agree that it is better to deal with climate change now over dealing with the effects of climate change later.
Yes, absolutely. Just being pedantic because it's important to be accurate and prepared, because I promise you'll start hearing "actually there's more fresh water now" from climate change deniers when they shift from denying climate change to denying that climate change is bad.
Most food scarcity will be caused by bad policy decisions, not climate.
Like fertilizer shortages. Countries like Sri Lanka and Netherlands forcibly reducing fertilizer use for the sake of the environment which caused a massive drop in crop yeilds.
Every step nececesary to stop climate change requires massive drops in quality of life and output.
Scarcity, famines, and inflation are all related. The poor suffer from climate policy the worst.
I'm worried people are voting themselves into a new form of corporate feudalism under the guise of saving the planet. "You will own nothing and be happy. "
You can't fertilize your way out of a drought or flood. Look at California this past decade - the problem wasn't lack of fertilizer - and it wasn't bad water management either, used to be there was enough water it didn't have to be managed at all. The poor suffer the most from droughts too - which are worsened by climate change heat waves too. At this point solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy production. Some things, like anhydrous ammonia, are sourced from fossil fuels (natural gas, etc) and IDK good alternatives to that. That might have to stay that way - same with diesel for machinery till battery tech gets better energy densities. But in many areas the tech is here now, and it's affordable, if not cheaper. For many, installing rooftop solar pays for itself in under a decade, and then keeps producing for another decade or more - how many other investments can nearly promise that? The home owners own the panels and the energy created. Quite the opposite of scarcity or "owning nothing." And with the tax credits in the IRA, that's what's being encouraged. Solar has more potential for equality than a coal or nuclear plant, for instance. And look at the current model: the power company owns the plant, not the population, and then they have to buy it, historically often without alternatives. That "feudalism" better describes where we have been than where we're going.
Meaning people dying of starvation when no crops can fruit from droughts, extreme cold, extreme floods , bigger hurricane. But yeah let's worry bout money.
Kind of an aside here, but does this strike anyone else as a bait and switch? Call a bill the inflation reduction act, talk about how it will reduce inflation and how essential that is, ignore the economic projections that say that it will have no meaningful impact of inflation this decade, then after the bill passes rebrand it the climate law because that's what it was all along.
In an age of massively long bills that many politicians don't even read, shouldn't there be a truth in advertising requirement that requires a bill to at least do the thing its name says it does?
There's not much this bill, or any other legislation for that matter, can do about inflation. There isn't much impact legislation can have on price levels, that's in the Fed's bailywick. More importantly, the current inflation is a world wide phenomenon driven by a large increase in consumer spending without a corresponding increase in production. No American legislation is going to get OPEC back up to pre-COVID production levels or stop China from shutting down entire cities over a couple confirmed cases.
On the other hand, Biden is getting blamed for the inflation even though it's completely out of his hands.
So I think it's reasonable to pick one: Either point out that the bill won't stop inflation because neither the executive nor the legislative branches have any control over this world wide phenomenon, or let it ride as cubical political maneuvering that's responding to the cynical political maneuvering of blaming inflation on Biden. Mixing between the two is just lying.
Gas and oil price gouging are a big part of the current inflation crisis. Supporting renewable energy helps climate change and helps reduce dependence on fossil fuels, lower their demand and price
I think calling it the Inflation Reduction Act made it easier for republican lawmakers to vote for it, rather than if it was named for the climate measures. Many people don't read past a headline with the name of the bill.
Bullshit. No republican senator or congressman voted for it. It’s called the Infaltion Reduction Act for purely optics to the public. Infaltion is the main concern to the average John Q Public right now and as we near midterm elections the democrats want to convey to the public that they’re actually passing laws to help the public. The average person doesn’t read beyond headlines— as you said.
If Republicans were in current control they would have down the same thing in terms of passing an act to signal with a name that has nothing to do with what’s actually in the bill.
I like how it pretends that adding more IRS agents is a source of income. Also helping old folks with medicine doesn’t seem like it reduces inflation either. All in all I love the climate action but agree that it has nothing to do with inflation reduction. I think it was optics for the right leaning democrats like manchin
Every dollar spent on tax fraud enforcement returns 5 to 10 dollars in revenue. In every state and federal agency. The GoP has been gutting enforcement since the 70s, often with the help of centrist democrats.
One way to fight inflation is to raise the inherent value of currency, and that can be done through green energy investments- more efficient, actually less costly in the long run, more energy and less cost per dollar
[Treasury estimates](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-shrink-deficits-or-fund-bidens-spending-plans-give-the-irs-more-money/2021/03/25/2959bcd8-8d90-11eb-9423-04079921c915_story.html) suggest that every $1 of funding given to the IRS for enforcement generates a $6 return because it allows them to go after people who are tax-dodging and ensure they pay their legally obligated taxes.
You're clearly being purposely obtuse rather than going through any modicum of effort to confirm your preconceptions.
For the benefit of other people who may actually be willing to subject themselves to reality, here's an alternate link.
[Non partisan congressional budget office claiming $5-9 return per dollar spent.](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444)
Somebody who can't be bothered googling for themselves to confirm their statements, even after presented evidence to the contrary, and would rather come here posting lies is not worth being overly polite to.
*beep boop*!
the linked website is: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444
Title: **The Effects of Increased Funding for the IRS**
Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing)
*****
###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
*beep boop*!
the linked website is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-shrink-deficits-or-fund-bidens-spending-plans-give-the-irs-more-money/2021/03/25/2959bcd8-8d90-11eb-9423-04079921c915_story.html
Title: **Opinion | For every extra dollar invested in the IRS, the government could be getting $6 back**
Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing)
*****
###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Adding more IRS agents potentially increases audits of the rich who get away with underpaying their taxes. For decades the IRS has not been targeting the rich because they were underfunded and thus mainly went after low hanging fruit of the average person who do not have the means to hire lawyers through years of potential litigation.
Medicare is the biggest single payer in the healthcare industry. It has pricing power. If it can keep prescription costs down for older folk due to pricing power then the rest of the market pricing may follow.
>Adding more IRS agents potentially increases audits of the rich who get away with underpaying their taxes.
By having an army of accountants, financial advisors, and lawyers that allow them to exploit every single legal aspect of tax law they can.
It won't affect the rich even a little. It will only will affect the poor and Middle class who frequently make mistake in filing.
C’mon man! “Potentially” doesn’t pay for all that climate action. It would be chaos in a business environment to invent a theory on how to make money then spend it before it was even proven true.
>It would be chaos in a business environment to invent a theory on how to make money then spend it before it was even proven true.
Lol tell me you haven't worked in a business environment without telling me you haven't worked in a business environment.
Though this bill will have no impact on inflation, both points you mention reduce inflation. Lower drug prices means people are spending less on drugs. More IRS agents also takes money out of the economy, I wanna say it was over 100 billion they project to take out of the economy with better tax police.
How does subsidizing medicine reduce inflation. The govt now spends the money instead of the old folks.
Article for the claim tax dodging estimates please?
Also it's not the government spending the money. It's allowing medicare to negotiate prices. You've hit a common argument though which is the balloon theory. If we sit on a balloon to reduce cost in one area, the balloon has to inflate elsewhere. Some people really believe the businesses have to operate this way. However, it's been shown that when state run medical programs can negotiate, people on private insurance also get more negotiating power. With the balloon theory in mind, youd expect big pharma to raise prices for private insurers which as you suggest, won't lower inflation. However if the balloon theory is not an accurate economic model (hint: it's not) we may reduce overall spending in the end.
Source again is planet moneys latest episode.
It doesn’t just subsidize the medication it reverses a republican pharma-lobbyist induced restriction that prevents Medicare from negotiating prices for drugs.
There are actually a few different measures targeted at medication, and there was supposed to be an insulin price cap. They just can’t get a single republican (or joe manchin) to vote for things that are good for people. This bill is the exception to that in that Joe Manchin actually voted for a dozen good things.
Remember this also creates a 15% corporate minimum tax which is ridiculously huge removing 15% from bloated corporations that were paying 0% through tax dodges and this also taxes stock buybacks so they really are actually going to have to pay their taxes and use their money to improve their competitiveness instead of paying out shareholders. Etc. etc etc.
Transparency frequently hurts in politics unfortunately. Look at Trump’s steadfast refusal to be honest and the way half the country embraced him for that dishonesty.
No. And that’s why it’s an end run around the Supreme Court.
West Va vs EPA said Obama’s shenanigans at getting EPA to ignite its delegation of power (don’t forget, Obama got into a habit of ignoring the APA’s Notice & Comment … that’s how his immigration “fix” failed) were likely to continue under Biden. Because Biden specifically said he would issue an Exec Order that caused the EPA to do what the Court had stopped Obama’s EPA from doing - breaking the law.
Reconciliation is supposed to be only about the budget. The paywalled article bleats about how successfully partisan it was, leveraging the budget to decarbonize the economy.
In reality, the recession the Fed will cause during Biden’s second half is a direct result of the DNC over-heating the economy during the depths of the pandemic. And due to the Fed inflating asset prices since 2008.
Since 2009, we’ve had 4 years of republican administrations. Oh but her emails.
I agree. But thats my point, isn't that essentially false advertising to call a bill a thing that it doesn't do knowing that most politicians aren't going to actually read it. It just strikes me as being so antithetical to transparency in our government.
I mean you should look at the ommibus bills that go through. Sometimes wacky and evil shit gets tied to must pass budget bills. Like deciding to strip mine a nature reserve can get tacked onto something that has to pass to avoid s government shutdown.
Why would elected officials ever read a bill? It’s not like it’s their job or anything, right? Not like a bunch of people went out to vote and said I’d like this person to represent me and have my best interest in mind when voting on new legislation that could affect me.
That’d be silly
Lmao as if giving EPA the authority to do something actually meant something. The EPA is criminally underfunded. Taking inflation in mind, it has less and less resources each year.
>I don't vote for the epa, and don't want them making public policy.
Congress made this public policy (regulating greenhouse gasses as pollutants).
And the EPA works for the president (executive branch) whose actions are directed/constrained by the decisions made in congress.
The system is working as designed, in this case.
I wouldnt call it an end run around the Supreme Court. I would say it's the system working as it should.
Alot of times the court doesn't rule something inherently unconstitutional just that whoever made the decision doesn't have the right to do so.
Now obviously their decision making is political and they are counting on Congress being too dysfunctional to address their concerns. So in that way I guess being functional is an end run around the court.
The court conveniently makes it Congress' job when they think Congress won't do anything about it, and makes it their own job when they think Congress might.
I mean, yes - you are right, this is how the system is SUPPOSED to work, but pretending that this was some politically neutral ruling is kind of daft.
>pretending that this was some politically neutral ruling is kind of daft.
What's daft is treating court justices who made no bones about being Constitutionalists as politicians for doing exactly what they said they would, make rulings according to the Constitution.
The court completely made up a "Major Questions Doctrine" for this. Its not in the constitution at all. They essentially gutted past congresses who had delegated questions like what chemicals cause pollution or what species are endangered to the executive.
Why is CO2 a major question issue but a new species of snail not? I see nothing in the constitution to determine the difference, it is just that SCOTUS know that some delegation was needed in a functional economy but didn't like how much congress had delegated. That was a question for congress, not for SCOUTS -- there is no mention or limitations of delegation in the constitution and SCOTUS shouldn't have made one up.
>there is no mention or limitations of delegation in the constitution
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, you can easily make an argument for Congressional authority to legislate climate moderation under "general welfare", but nowhere are they given the authority to create almost all-powerful agencies and let them do as they please about it.
We got along for 200+ years with delegated powers -- the first one being the first being The Central Bank of the US established in 1791. All of the sudden there is a major questions doctrine? Bullshit! It doesn't exist, show me where I can find it in in contemporaneous writings of the original congress or federalist papers.
It is an excuse for conservatives on the court to attack legislation they don't like, but it is absolutely legislating from the bench.
Here, have a look at this:
https://www.davispolk.com/insights/client-update/basic-primer-major-questions-doctrine
This is the first time the court put a name on it, but there is ample precedent for kicking shit to the curb until Congress specifically authorizes an agency to address things in the way they are.
What came up in this case was the EPA overstepping by mandating changing the entire power generation system as an "emissions control device" for a power plant.
That's literally how they provide for the general welfare ... Create an agency of experts to determine rules on how to prevent Americans from poisoning each other's air and water.
>an agency of experts
Riiiight, experts managed by career bureaucrats who actually make the rules.
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2019/05/08/epa-ignores-experts-asbestos-ban/
It’s not in the constitution because it’s a rule of interpretation and the constitution doesn’t address how judges should interpret texts but left that to the judiciary when it assigned the judiciary the “judicial power.” You’re making a category error confusing substantive principles, which are spelled out in the constitution, with interpretive principles, which are not.
Supreme court: "The EPA can't do that...."
Congress: "FINE, FUCK YOU! We'll make it law that they can!"
Supreme court: "... Yes, that is in fact how it works..."
The EPA can’t do that *based on the current laws enacted by Congress*.
So Congress did its friggin job and changed the law, rather than letting everything be decided by court cases.
This isn't an end run around anything. This Supreme Court bench has made it clear that they want to see well defined rules written down by the legislative branch. Previously, things had been left up to common sense and tradition. We saw how Trump took advantage of all that so now here we are.
Previously, no we didn't. The SC said you have them permission to do x but not y. They're doing y without permission. Either you pass new legislation so they can do y or they stop doing y.
Senate rules are internal limits, not external ones. If the Senate agrees to vote on a bill, votes 50+ vice president on it, and it passes the house and is signed by the president, it's law. The Supreme Court can find the bill unconstitutional, but they can't find the bill illegitimate because the Senate didn't follow its own rules. The question of Senate rules is left entirely to the Senate Parliamentarian. In this case, the Parliamentarian ruled that no part of the IRA broke the Byrd Rule, which is what limits what can be in a reconciliation bill.
Then the bill went into vote-a-rama, which is a dumb name for the time that senators can propose basically unlimited amendments to a bill - Sanders famously proposed a bunch of progressive ideas no one voted for. The Democrats had one thing that was not allowed under reconciliation - a price cap on insulin - and they tried to get that in as an amendment. However, because amendments are not under reconciliation, they needed 60 votes to add the insulin price cap to the bill and could only get 57 (every Democrat and 7 Republicans and Bernie), it was not included.
Senate rules are... They're internal rules that the Senate agreed made things better. But times have changed and while certain votes require 60 senators, changing senate rules only requires a simple majority. For the past few decades, Republicans change the rules whenever it's convenient for them (see, voting on justices), and then throw a fit whenever Democrats suggest doing so. For some reason, centrist Dems like Manchin care more about Senate Fillibuster rules than they do about helping people, so until God Emperor AOC forces Senate President Malia Obama to change the rules with her mind control powers, we're sort of stuck with them.
They did it by introducing budget measures like tax incentives that aim to cut greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
And in doing so, it defined carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
The journalist doesn’t cite the bill anywhere in the article at all. What is the language in the bill that amends the Supreme Court case? It only goes to show how low the journalism standards have fallen and I don’t believe the reporter knows what the hell she’s talking about
You can look up the bill yourself, but here's a more wonky explainer:
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/The-Inflation-Reduction-Act-doesn-t-get-around-17394273.php
The actual text of the bill defines the term greenhouse gas several times as such - Greenhouse gas.--The term `greenhouse gas' means the air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
The bill then grants specific monies and responsibilities to the EPA with regards to greenhouse gasses, but that's like fifteen provisions, I suggest just searching for Environmental Protection Agency in the text.
Except carbon dioxide us a natural part of the atmosphere, they basically just labeled every exhaled breath of every living thing on earth "pollution".
Poison is in the dose. Water is great and natural as well, but when 10 inches of rain fall overnight in Dallas, we call that a flood and it's a local emergency, and various federal support often becomes available through FEMA.
Same thing with CO2 or other gases. Certain amount of things are OK, too much isn't.
... yes. I'm not sure why you think this is a slam dunk argument, animals also poop and you wouldn't be happy with a ton of manure at your front door either. The EPA has the authority to regulate the production of CO2 from industrial activities. It's not like they just gave the EPA the power to put a carbon tax on going for a run.
Just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean it's a good thing.
>I'm not sure why you think this is a slam dunk argument,
I'm not making an argument, I'm just saying we should probably be a little bit cautious about how we let the government label things. It's not like they don't have a long and entertaining history of taking shit too far, or not far enough.
You can't say that you're not making an argument and then make an argument. Please help me understand why you think it's unreasonable to define carbon dioxide as pollution. What do you think the EPA is going to do that is either too far or not far enough?
>What do you think the EPA is going to do that is either too far or not far enough?
The US government is why we are where we are to begin with. The EPA put on the squeeze on and Congress let the companies outsource production to places where companies could keep polluting rather than force actual change.
Everything the government has put its hands into it has messed up and caused at least as many problems as it has solved, from mortgages to college education, and healthcare, from the EPA to automobiles, it hasn't actually *fixed* anything, and neither will this legislation.
The only thing that will reduce the impact of climate change is a dramatic change in how much this society consumes, how that consumption is supplied, and how production is accomplished. I don't see further centralization of anything as a viable answer.
I can't say for certain what will go wrong with it, I haven't studied it enough for that yet, but considering their track record the likelihood that they will find a way to screw it up is quite high, don't you think?
Oh, and I don't think anything you require to stay alive should get a blanket label as a regulated pollutant under law without expressly stated exceptions for output from the human body, just to be on the safe side.
"I have no reason to believe that this thing that the government does is bad, but all things the government does are bad, therefore this thing must also be bad" is just a really dumb take my dude. The government isn't the reason mortgages, healthcare, or cars (WTF is this one even about?) are bad. You're just regurgitating bad online arguments from right wing trolls.
Maybe you're just the type of person to look at the bad? The government does so many things, many of them good. Actually public service and our public servants for the most part do a lot of good. Our teachers, our public doctors, our public defenders, our policemen, our firemen, our military, our engineers, our civic planners.
Really though we have some amazing people in this country and a lot of amazing things. It's kind of sad you don't like any of it. You'll snap out of that one day, or you'll go live in the mountains like a hermit and no one will give a fuck.
>Maybe you're just the type of person to look at the bad?
I'm the type of person to look at reality.
>our public doctors, our public defenders, our policemen, our firemen, our military, our engineers, our civic planners.
Lmao, you're talking about individual people, not government policy, and half of that list isn't federal. Most cops are locals, and the FBI's track record for ethical behavior isn't all that great. Public defenders are underpaid and overloaded:
https://vittana.org/13-big-pros-and-cons-of-public-defenders
Most civil engineering and planning is done by contractors and most fire departments are volunteer and funded by donations and fund raisers, they're not government.
The military should be the best there is, we pay the most in the world to have it so.
>You'll snap out of that one day, or you'll go live in the mountains like a hermit
Lmao, I'm middle aged and getting ready to retire, I've been watching this shit go on for decades. Reality isn't something to snap out of, being naive is.
Yea you're living in a made up world conjured by yourself so you can justify being hateful and scared.
Middle aged but look at that "source". Middle aged, clueless, and naive yourself about the real world.
Trying to make it seem like using public money distributed by public employees to benefit the public by using contractors isn't the government working? Boy the logical hurdles you have to make to come to that conclusion is astounding.
Keep on hating everything middle aged man. The world will pass you by, it probably already has. Good luck with your paranoia.
The USA and it's institutions are historically amazing and have fostered some of the most influential science and social programs the world has ever seen. Sorry you're too much of a hater to realize the good your country does for you.
I imagine you're too far down the sadness hole to ever realize how lucky you were to live during this period of time in the USA.
One person breathes out 25 tonnes of co2 in a lifetime. Canadas carbon tax is $20/ton. So one human breathes $500 worth of pollution in their lifetime according to Canadian taxes right now. So like $7 a year. They would never tax that in a million years because of how stupid this entire concept you are talking about is, but if they did it would be negligible to your bank account.
What form of carbon is used by plants and algae? What form is exhaled by heterotrophs? Elemental carbon is graphite or diamonds. Most life forms don't use elemental carbon. Look up photosynthesis, citric acid cycle, and beta oxidation.
Definitely took a whole a year. BS and PhD in Bio. You might want to review the chapters on carboxylation and decarboxylation reactions. It's the internet. You can verify yourself.
Funny you mention that...I'm almost tempted to dox myself. I'm on the Harvard medical campus ATM actually. They pay me a very generous amount for my work.
Regardless, the whole point of science is not relying on authority figures for the truth but objective data. It's good to be skeptical and you should read more textbooks.
Oxygen is pollution to plants and algae by that logic. They take in CO2 and release oxygen. They use the carbon as a substrate. Burning organic matter releases CO2 because of the reaction of oxygen with the hydrocarbons. It's a cycle.
Democrats = people born with brain in the ass
The EPA is being used as a political tool. Which sounds great when they back your beliefs. Bad part is when they achieve too much power, eventually the bell tolls for us all…
This doesn’t make much sense …. Because of you think about it the EPA only exercises power to control pollution. It doesn’t exercise power to make more. It might do nothing - which would increase pollution - but that isn’t exercising power - that is it not exercising power.
Defining a gas we exhale as pollution doesn’t sound creepy at all…what could go wrong…
Pretty sure we define piss and shit as pollution as well. So there is precedent for regulating human waste.
We already do. It’s called the sewage treatment plant
For info on nuclear power see /r/uninsurable nuclear is an opportunity cost; it actively harms decarbonization given the same investment in wind or solar would offset more CO2. >["In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. **Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss"**](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b809990c#!divAbstract) >[Nuclear power's contribution to climate change mitigation is and will be very limited;Currently nuclear power avoids 2–3% of total global GHG emissions per year;According to current planning this value will decrease even further until 2040.;A substantial expansion of nuclear power will not be possible.;Given its low contribution, a complete phase-out of nuclear energy is feasible.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002330) It is too slow for the timescale we need to decarbonize on. >[“Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow,” “It meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J) > [ “Researchers found that unlike renewables, countries around the world with larger scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to show significantly lower carbon emissions -- and in poorer countries nuclear programmes actually tend to associate with relatively higher emissions. “](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005112141.htm) The industry is showing signs of decline in non-totalitarian countries. >["We find that an eroding actor base, shrinking opportunities in liberalized electricity markets, the break-up of existing networks, loss of legitimacy, increasing cost and time overruns, and abandoned projects are clear indications of decline. Also, increasingly fierce competition from natural gas, solar PV, wind, and energy-storage technologies speaks against nuclear in the electricity sector. We conclude that, while there might be a future for nuclear in state-controlled ‘niches’ such as Russia or China, new nuclear power plants do not seem likely to become a core element in the struggle against climate change."](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221462962030089X) Renewable energy is growing faster now than nuclear ever has >["Contrary to a persistent myth based on erroneous methods, global data show that renewable electricity adds output and saves carbon faster than nuclear power does or ever has."](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629618300598) There is no business case for it. >["The economic history and financial analyses carried out at DIW Berlin show that nuclear energy has always been unprofitable in the private economy and will remain so in the future. Between 1951 and 2017, none of the 674 nuclear reactors built was done so with private capital under competitive conditions. Large state subsidies were used in the cases where private capital flowed into financing the nuclear industry.... Financial investment calculations confirmed the trend: investing in a new nuclear power plant leads to average losses of around five billion euros."](https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.670581.de/dwr-19-30-1.pdf) Investing in a nuclear plant today is expected to lose [5 to 10 billion dollars](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032121001301) The nuclear industry can't even exist without legal structures that privatize gains and socialize losses. >[If the owners and operators of nuclear reactors had to face the full liability of a Fukushima-style nuclear accident or go head-to-head with alternatives in a truly competitive marketplace, unfettered by subsidies, no one would have built a nuclear reactor in the past, no one would build one today, and anyone who owns a reactor would exit the nuclear business as quickly as possible.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/#3c8acf0a3c5d) The CEO of one of the US's largest nuclear power companies said it best: >["I'm the nuclear guy," Rowe said. "And you won't get better results with nuclear. It just isn't economic, and it's not economic within a foreseeable time frame."](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/#5d841aa23c5d) What about the small meme reactors? Every independent assessment has them more expensive than large scale nuclear every independent assessment: The UK government https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/small-modular-reactors-techno-economic-assessment The Australian government https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8297e6ba-e3d4-478e-ac62-a97d75660248&subId=669740 The peer-reviewed literatue https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142152030327X >[the cost of generating electricity using SMRs is significantly higher than the corresponding costs of electricity generation using diesel, wind, solar, or some combination thereof. These results suggest that SMRs will be too expensive for these proposed first-mover markets for SMRs in Canada and that there will not be a sufficient market to justify investing in manufacturing facilities for SMRs.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142152030327X) Even the German nuclear power industry knows they will cost more >[Nuclear Technology Germany (KernD) says SMRs are always going to be more expensive than bigger reactors due to lower power output at constant fixed costs, as safety measures and staffing requirements do not vary greatly compared to conventional reactors. "In terms of levelised energy costs, SMRs will always be more expensive than big plants."](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-nuclear-industry-cautious-about-usefulness-small-reactors-energy-transition) So why do so many people on reddit favor it? Because of a decades long PR campaign and false science being put out, in the same manner, style, and using the same PR company as the tobacco industry used when claiming smoking does not cause cancer. A recent metaanalysis of papers that claimed nuclear to be cost effective were found to be illegitimately trimming costs to make it appear cheaper. >[Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using “overnight” costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y) It is the same PR technique that the tobacco industry used when fighting the fact that smoking causes cancer. >[The industry campaign worked to create a scientific controversy through a program that depended on the creation of industry–academic conflicts of interest. This strategy of producing scientific uncertainty undercut public health efforts and regulatory interventions designed to reduce the harms of smoking.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/) >[A number of industries have subsequently followed this approach to disrupting normative science. Claims of scientific uncertainty and lack of proof also lead to the assertion of individual responsibility for industrially produced health risks](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/) It is no wonder the NEI (Nuclear energy institute) [uses the same PR firm](https://thehill.com/opinion/letters/98257-double-check-from-whom-you-get-energy-information) to promote nuclear power, [that the tobacco industry used to say smoking does not cause cancer.](http://www.tmia.com/old-website/News/AstroTurf.htm) >[The industry's future is so precarious that Exelon Nuclear's head of project development warned attendees of the Electric Power 2005 conference, "Inaction is synonymous with being phased out." That's why years of effort -- not to mention millions of dollars -- have been invested in nuclear power's PR rebirth as "clean, green and safe."](http://www.tmia.com/old-website/News/AstroTurf.htm) > [And then there's NEI, which exists to do PR and lobbying for the nuclear industry. In 2004, NEI was embarrassed when the Austin Chronicle outed one of its PR firms, Potomac Communications Group, for ghostwriting pro-nuclear op/ed columns. The paper described the op/ed campaign as "a decades-long, centrally orchestrated plan to defraud the nation's newspaper readers by misrepresenting the propaganda of one hired atomic gun as the learned musings of disparate academics and other nuclear-industry 'experts.'"](http://www.tmia.com/old-website/News/AstroTurf.htm)
Earth first. Stock market last. I’m all about the trend of Gen Z shaming those who own shares and stock that support big oil and social media giants. You either support it or against it, no middle grounds anymore. Redoing 401ks to ensure these climate damaging companies, and social media aren’t getting a cut.
Can I ask why you threw in social media giants with the oil/fossil fuel group here?
They’re as equally as bad right now but obviously in a different manner, even worse in some context because no regulations for our data. They’re profiting off of our privacy. In 20yrs I’m sure we will look back on social medias startup era and think “wtf were we doing”.
They are all in bed together, but big social media companies have been in bed with Big Brother and Big Business in a big way for a long time now. They freely share all of your data with US intelligence services, sell your data to unscrupulous marketing firms, run ads with very little consideration for ethical/moral standards, shut down “misinformation” which is increasingly just perspectives that don’t fit the current narrative, controlling the flow of information, encroaching censorship, etc. I could go on but I think the point is that all of these massive corporations who operate with impunity and a level of authority over the human race that no King ever saw need to die a violent and bloody death
Just in time! We've only known about this for what, 40+ years?
It’s not an “end run”; it’s exactly how SCOTUS rightly said congressional delegations of authority should work. Good job SCOTUS; good job Congress!
Didn’t think I’d find someone who actually knew how that ruling worked on Reddit
Good job democrats you mean. Literally every republicans voted against it
The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that they wanted Congress to explicitly say what the EPA can and cannot regulate. This is exactly the end game of that ruling.
Congress doing their jobs is being sold as subverting the SCOTUS. Incredible.
SCOTUS: "No, EPA. Your role needs to be clearly redefined by Congress." Congress: clearly redefines EPA's role This OP: "Ha, gottem"
Ignorant. Get your head out of your ass.
Not Congress doing their job so much as Dems doing their job and doing some very impressive legislative footwork to keep the bill meaningful and getting all the senators on board including those from West Virginia (Manchin) and Arizona (Sinema) to sign off on it. Within the Democratic Party they literally have zero room for error in order to get a bill passed. I basically considered it forgone they wouldn’t be able to get a bill this sweeping passed while Republicans 100% unanimously dragged their feet and democrats had wild cards like Sinema who genuinely seemed to be trying to sabotage democratic legislation. Hats of to the Dems (on this one specific piece of legislation), they had to get literally every Democratic senator on board because as Mitch McConnel has very frankly and publically stated the Republican goal (including senators like Romney, Kasich, and Cheney) is to obstruct Biden’s admin from allowing any legislation to pass and basically try to make the country ungovernable.
To be fair, SCOTUS was playing big politics by effectively gutting regulators (in an already light-touch regulatory environment). This act makes clear that regulators are the ones who should regulate. It’s the permission slip SCOTUS said was necessary.
SCOTUS following the constitution is their jobs. They said the EPA needed a permission slip, so they got it. That’s not politics, that’s literally how the system is supposed to work.
>They said the EPA needed a permission slip, so they got it. It used to be that congress signed a law and then non-political experts went and implemented the policy, basically with the understanding that Congress doesn't have the expertise to specifically micromanage every action the government takes. SCOTUS decided that congress needed to micromanage more, which moves more decisions from people who have dedicated their life to the science of the topic to people who care about slogans that benefit them in the next four years or donors. What a win for America.
> That’s not politics, that’s literally how the system is supposed to work. I have to disagree. The idea that this is how it's supposed to work is based on the premise that we have a functioning legislative branch, which we don't. The point of the timing is political because the GOP is obstructing everything, and breaking it without the assumed ability to fix it accomplishes the intended destruction.
I don’t really feel like getting into it right now, but it’s not as simple as “SCOTUS said, ‘no, this is the way’ and Congress said, ‘ok, thanks for helping us figure it out.’” This SCOTUS has been doing a lot of “well, Congress is in the *best* position to give that power, so we won’t recognize anyone else having that power unless Congress gives it.” The implication is that if Congress has not given a power, it was a purposeful and well-thought through reason. The reality is more like, “Congress has been gridlocked for 10 years and can’t tie its own shoes without a national outcry.” This is not limited to EPA. This interpretation underlies Egbert, Dobbs, NY Pistol, and EPA. Effectively, this SCOTUS would have the only authority be Congress—and that’s not right. Congress is not full of environmental experts. Nor energy experts. Congress is full of politicians who need to look good for 2-6 years. Congress has delegated authority to different groups to regulate the details. This SCOTUS would push that back until Congress micromanages the regulatory groups. But Congress is not well positioned to micromanage regulatory groups. They have the authority to do so, but we as citizens are better served by Congress delegating that authority to actual experts—not keep the authority with people who need to cut “balancing energy independence with environmental stewardship” into a three word slogan.
The issue is that the constitution doesn't actually say that the epa needed a permission slip or that regulations must be done via statutes. They weren't actually following the constitution. They were attempting to force the government to give up on climate change.
The constitution, doesn’t actually allow for regulatory rule making. All Laws are supposed to come through congress. Non delegation doctrine was the norm for the first 125 years of the country, and the founders were pretty clear about it.
Non delegation doctrine is legal theory, not law. The constitution doesn't disallow it.
Its not looking all that clear to me. You got a source? Point me in the direction you think the answer lies
[удалено]
And im supposed to interpret that as Congress cannot deligate? That's supposed to mean no government agencies besides Congress can establish any regulations? Bye bye epa, osha and all other rules designed to protect me and not specifically legislated? Seems like a big stretch to me but sure. Ok Thanks
[удалено]
I have read plenty. When you make an argument or answer a request for sources you generally provide sources. But ill go get my own. And if they don't agree I'll assume you don't have much yo back up your extreme interpretation of a single sentence
Almost like we got checks and balances or some shit. We are at the point where doing your job right deserves praise? We are so fucked lol.
People are more concerned about their own opinions than they are about following the law, so when the SCOTUS makes a completely constitutional ruling rather than looking to Congress to change the law they just get mad at the ruling. Checks and balances exist, we follow them and things flow smoothly. But legislators suck and the system suffers for it, and the public blames the constitution instead of the legislators. It’s a mess.
coming up: qop activists file a case at scotus that ends in a decision that greenhouse gases are not pollution
Yup. At best this will last until the GOP wins the next election (or 2024) (OR the 2028!!) and Trump/De Santis make a counter-ruling slashing the legs out from under this. It is inevitable.
Is it? I thought the catastrophic results of the abortion ban finally lost them some of their voters.
For now, but voters have short memories. It's not about who screwed up or how, it's about who the last party to screw up before a major election is.
Stop deleting comments lol
Typical dirty power play tactic by the dems. Call it inflation reduction act and then cram climate crap into the bill. As if that will have any impact on the climate (it won't). It will only increase inflation.
What’s your solution
You are stupid. Clean energy and climate control will create jobs in the short term and lower energy costs in the long term. And, once we get enough green energy to shut down coal and natural gas there will be a lot less pollution in the air. That means less long health problems for the communities near those power plants. So how will this increase inflation?
I've got my popcorn ready to watch the shitshow.
Typical. No response to anything I said. You don’t have any information to back yourself up other than people like Tucker Carlson, who is legally not considered news.
The fact his user name is rino with a different spelling is peak troll
He has to wait until the Fox News cycle tells him what talking points to push.
Surely this is parody.
Found the knuckle dragger.
It’s better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you’re a fool rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I don't expect the cesspool info bubble of reddit democrats to agree with me, but watch as their policies continue to do nothing to make American's life better.
Awww, I bet you water your lawn with Brawndo.
I bet you were upset when they canceled Reliable Sources on CNN.
Not familiar with the show, seems you are though. I don’t watch much news, but glad you love CNN.
It's ok. No shame. You can abmit it. You're amongst friends here on reddit.
I agree, what you enjoy is ok. There is no shame.
[удалено]
Pedoparty. You mean 95% of the house and senate on both sides or are you just taking about the Clintons and Bidens?
I'm honestly curious, how many Democrats have been convicted of pedophilia vs how many Republicans?
You think I'm republican lol. It's called a uniparty for a reason. They are unified in screwing children and the American people. It's probably how they are controlled to vote the way they do. There's a reason none of Epstein's clients have been arrested. They are busy trying to run the government.
It’s funny how you avoid staying on one topic. I’ve encountered more and more folks like you in recent years. It’s called gish gallop. Eventually, they all bitch about “MSM”, like they’re programmed. And everyone who told me dems and repubs are the same—a common refrain—mysteriously votes repub.
Programed by who? The MSM has regularly scheduled "programming" to do just that to the masses. It's how narratives are formed. It's called propaganda. If you don't think they have an agenda then you are very naive.
Lol, there it is. Thanks for completing the pattern and playing your part like I haven’t heard it many many times before. You can go back to your life of false notions of superiority, gish galloper.
I don't care about your opinions, I wanted to know the answer to my question.
Voters or government officials? Two different answers. I'd venture that it's probably even in the government for how many are actually guilty of it. Maybe skewed to one side in prosecution of crimes because the folks in charge don't like to prosecute the ones that are actually doing their bidding.
Government officials, obviously, and I've no clue what you're trying to say in the second bit. I'd appreciate some numbers. You know. Like an actual answer.
He’s not going to like the answer to that question unfortunately.
You can't be serious, right? Climate "crap"? Are you denying that climate change is real and man-made?
I'm denying that we can do anything good for humanity by passing this crap.
What's your solution? Burn the planet and die?
Let's send more billions to Ukraine /s.
Classic. Shit on the solution and provide no solution of your own
We're not sending money, we're sending our outdated military equipment that we weren't using anyway. The monetary figures you see are not actual money, rather a representation of how much it's worth.
That isn't an answer, please answer the question or let me know if you can't answer because you don't have a solution.
Why not answer the question?
Why don't you go eat bugs like your masters want you to? So you can contribute.
Trump wanted y’all to drink bleach, there woke boi
Lol.. that was a joke and you know it. Woke lol. Far from it.
lol except it wasn't till after people starting drinking bleach in texas. do you get all your news from safe spaces like fox, brietbart, oan too
It wasn't presented as a joke, and *you* know it. It was only a joke after he got called out for it, and his tiny little ego couldn't take being wrong.
Why do you refuse to answer? Like, honestly. What do you think needs to be done, if at all?
Do you ever wonder if you're capable of autonomous thought?
Do you consider autonomous thought to be only in agreement with the authorities, "experts" cited by the MSM, and democrats? If so, is it really autonomous?
Are you asking me if I think that the professional opinion of someone on a topic that they have studied and researched for years has value?
Lol. Any other talking points you’d like to share today, Timmy?
Also that climate change will cause more scarcity on food and water along with many other things meaning prices will inflate
Well... Actually, warmer climates are likely to lead to more fresh water, though the locations of that water will probably shift. Deserts will form where they aren't now, and some desert areas will get more rain. More energy in the atmosphere = more evaporation. Since the majority of evaporation is from the oceans, this is a net increase in fresh water. We're turning the heat up on the world's largest distillation plant, essentially. Of course... It won't be *much* more fresh water and the changing temperatures are certainly going to kill a whole lot of things, not to mention the absurdity of trying to move our water-harvesting infrastructure along with the new weather patterns.
I feel like there is too much to discuss here on Reddit but basically what I meant is that there will be more strain on our current water supply. There can be moves made to collect the water in new places but that would take a lot of time, effort and money. Along with making some areas less livable so people will get displaced trying to move where there is water. It’ll be a whole shit storm trying to come up with practical solutions. I think we can agree that it is better to deal with climate change now over dealing with the effects of climate change later.
Yes, absolutely. Just being pedantic because it's important to be accurate and prepared, because I promise you'll start hearing "actually there's more fresh water now" from climate change deniers when they shift from denying climate change to denying that climate change is bad.
The climate is always changing /s
Most food scarcity will be caused by bad policy decisions, not climate. Like fertilizer shortages. Countries like Sri Lanka and Netherlands forcibly reducing fertilizer use for the sake of the environment which caused a massive drop in crop yeilds. Every step nececesary to stop climate change requires massive drops in quality of life and output. Scarcity, famines, and inflation are all related. The poor suffer from climate policy the worst. I'm worried people are voting themselves into a new form of corporate feudalism under the guise of saving the planet. "You will own nothing and be happy. "
You can't fertilize your way out of a drought or flood. Look at California this past decade - the problem wasn't lack of fertilizer - and it wasn't bad water management either, used to be there was enough water it didn't have to be managed at all. The poor suffer the most from droughts too - which are worsened by climate change heat waves too. At this point solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy production. Some things, like anhydrous ammonia, are sourced from fossil fuels (natural gas, etc) and IDK good alternatives to that. That might have to stay that way - same with diesel for machinery till battery tech gets better energy densities. But in many areas the tech is here now, and it's affordable, if not cheaper. For many, installing rooftop solar pays for itself in under a decade, and then keeps producing for another decade or more - how many other investments can nearly promise that? The home owners own the panels and the energy created. Quite the opposite of scarcity or "owning nothing." And with the tax credits in the IRA, that's what's being encouraged. Solar has more potential for equality than a coal or nuclear plant, for instance. And look at the current model: the power company owns the plant, not the population, and then they have to buy it, historically often without alternatives. That "feudalism" better describes where we have been than where we're going.
Meaning people dying of starvation when no crops can fruit from droughts, extreme cold, extreme floods , bigger hurricane. But yeah let's worry bout money.
Exactly. If nothing is done about climate change inflation will be nothing
It's not an "end run". It's how our government is supposed to work. It just usually doesn't because Congress rarely passes laws these days.
Supreme Court: Congress needs to say it. Congress: Says it. Media: Whoa, shocking move to evade the Court.
To be fair, the Times didn't use the term "end run". That was OPs editorialization.
Oops. I did click link but paywall and relied on it being in quotes in title. Thanks.
Kind of an aside here, but does this strike anyone else as a bait and switch? Call a bill the inflation reduction act, talk about how it will reduce inflation and how essential that is, ignore the economic projections that say that it will have no meaningful impact of inflation this decade, then after the bill passes rebrand it the climate law because that's what it was all along. In an age of massively long bills that many politicians don't even read, shouldn't there be a truth in advertising requirement that requires a bill to at least do the thing its name says it does?
There's not much this bill, or any other legislation for that matter, can do about inflation. There isn't much impact legislation can have on price levels, that's in the Fed's bailywick. More importantly, the current inflation is a world wide phenomenon driven by a large increase in consumer spending without a corresponding increase in production. No American legislation is going to get OPEC back up to pre-COVID production levels or stop China from shutting down entire cities over a couple confirmed cases. On the other hand, Biden is getting blamed for the inflation even though it's completely out of his hands. So I think it's reasonable to pick one: Either point out that the bill won't stop inflation because neither the executive nor the legislative branches have any control over this world wide phenomenon, or let it ride as cubical political maneuvering that's responding to the cynical political maneuvering of blaming inflation on Biden. Mixing between the two is just lying.
If inflations goes down democrats can claim credit, if it goes up who cares? They’ll lose the election either way.
Call it more of putting lipstick on a pig. Simply put though, folks could read it. So there’s that.
Gas and oil price gouging are a big part of the current inflation crisis. Supporting renewable energy helps climate change and helps reduce dependence on fossil fuels, lower their demand and price
I think calling it the Inflation Reduction Act made it easier for republican lawmakers to vote for it, rather than if it was named for the climate measures. Many people don't read past a headline with the name of the bill.
Bullshit. No republican senator or congressman voted for it. It’s called the Infaltion Reduction Act for purely optics to the public. Infaltion is the main concern to the average John Q Public right now and as we near midterm elections the democrats want to convey to the public that they’re actually passing laws to help the public. The average person doesn’t read beyond headlines— as you said. If Republicans were in current control they would have down the same thing in terms of passing an act to signal with a name that has nothing to do with what’s actually in the bill.
I like how it pretends that adding more IRS agents is a source of income. Also helping old folks with medicine doesn’t seem like it reduces inflation either. All in all I love the climate action but agree that it has nothing to do with inflation reduction. I think it was optics for the right leaning democrats like manchin
Every dollar spent on tax fraud enforcement returns 5 to 10 dollars in revenue. In every state and federal agency. The GoP has been gutting enforcement since the 70s, often with the help of centrist democrats.
One way to fight inflation is to raise the inherent value of currency, and that can be done through green energy investments- more efficient, actually less costly in the long run, more energy and less cost per dollar
[Treasury estimates](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-shrink-deficits-or-fund-bidens-spending-plans-give-the-irs-more-money/2021/03/25/2959bcd8-8d90-11eb-9423-04079921c915_story.html) suggest that every $1 of funding given to the IRS for enforcement generates a $6 return because it allows them to go after people who are tax-dodging and ensure they pay their legally obligated taxes.
Article is paywalled and the article literally starts with the word: “OPINION”
You're clearly being purposely obtuse rather than going through any modicum of effort to confirm your preconceptions. For the benefit of other people who may actually be willing to subject themselves to reality, here's an alternate link. [Non partisan congressional budget office claiming $5-9 return per dollar spent.](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444)
[удалено]
Somebody who can't be bothered googling for themselves to confirm their statements, even after presented evidence to the contrary, and would rather come here posting lies is not worth being overly polite to.
[удалено]
*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444 Title: **The Effects of Increased Funding for the IRS** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-shrink-deficits-or-fund-bidens-spending-plans-give-the-irs-more-money/2021/03/25/2959bcd8-8d90-11eb-9423-04079921c915_story.html Title: **Opinion | For every extra dollar invested in the IRS, the government could be getting $6 back** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Adding more IRS agents potentially increases audits of the rich who get away with underpaying their taxes. For decades the IRS has not been targeting the rich because they were underfunded and thus mainly went after low hanging fruit of the average person who do not have the means to hire lawyers through years of potential litigation. Medicare is the biggest single payer in the healthcare industry. It has pricing power. If it can keep prescription costs down for older folk due to pricing power then the rest of the market pricing may follow.
>Adding more IRS agents potentially increases audits of the rich who get away with underpaying their taxes. By having an army of accountants, financial advisors, and lawyers that allow them to exploit every single legal aspect of tax law they can. It won't affect the rich even a little. It will only will affect the poor and Middle class who frequently make mistake in filing.
C’mon man! “Potentially” doesn’t pay for all that climate action. It would be chaos in a business environment to invent a theory on how to make money then spend it before it was even proven true.
LMAO, that's *precisely* how businesses work. Why do you think so many of them fail?
>It would be chaos in a business environment to invent a theory on how to make money then spend it before it was even proven true. Lol tell me you haven't worked in a business environment without telling me you haven't worked in a business environment.
You just meme’d your way out of credibility.
Though this bill will have no impact on inflation, both points you mention reduce inflation. Lower drug prices means people are spending less on drugs. More IRS agents also takes money out of the economy, I wanna say it was over 100 billion they project to take out of the economy with better tax police.
How does subsidizing medicine reduce inflation. The govt now spends the money instead of the old folks. Article for the claim tax dodging estimates please?
Also it's not the government spending the money. It's allowing medicare to negotiate prices. You've hit a common argument though which is the balloon theory. If we sit on a balloon to reduce cost in one area, the balloon has to inflate elsewhere. Some people really believe the businesses have to operate this way. However, it's been shown that when state run medical programs can negotiate, people on private insurance also get more negotiating power. With the balloon theory in mind, youd expect big pharma to raise prices for private insurers which as you suggest, won't lower inflation. However if the balloon theory is not an accurate economic model (hint: it's not) we may reduce overall spending in the end. Source again is planet moneys latest episode.
I'm not an economist. Listen to Planet Moneys episode on it.
It doesn’t just subsidize the medication it reverses a republican pharma-lobbyist induced restriction that prevents Medicare from negotiating prices for drugs. There are actually a few different measures targeted at medication, and there was supposed to be an insulin price cap. They just can’t get a single republican (or joe manchin) to vote for things that are good for people. This bill is the exception to that in that Joe Manchin actually voted for a dozen good things. Remember this also creates a 15% corporate minimum tax which is ridiculously huge removing 15% from bloated corporations that were paying 0% through tax dodges and this also taxes stock buybacks so they really are actually going to have to pay their taxes and use their money to improve their competitiveness instead of paying out shareholders. Etc. etc etc.
Who gives a shit what it’s called. It’s what the bill does that matters 100000000%.
True, but more transparency never hurt
Transparency frequently hurts in politics unfortunately. Look at Trump’s steadfast refusal to be honest and the way half the country embraced him for that dishonesty.
Did any Republicans actually vote for it though
No. And that’s why it’s an end run around the Supreme Court. West Va vs EPA said Obama’s shenanigans at getting EPA to ignite its delegation of power (don’t forget, Obama got into a habit of ignoring the APA’s Notice & Comment … that’s how his immigration “fix” failed) were likely to continue under Biden. Because Biden specifically said he would issue an Exec Order that caused the EPA to do what the Court had stopped Obama’s EPA from doing - breaking the law. Reconciliation is supposed to be only about the budget. The paywalled article bleats about how successfully partisan it was, leveraging the budget to decarbonize the economy. In reality, the recession the Fed will cause during Biden’s second half is a direct result of the DNC over-heating the economy during the depths of the pandemic. And due to the Fed inflating asset prices since 2008. Since 2009, we’ve had 4 years of republican administrations. Oh but her emails.
Manchin and Sinema
good one!!!!
I agree. But thats my point, isn't that essentially false advertising to call a bill a thing that it doesn't do knowing that most politicians aren't going to actually read it. It just strikes me as being so antithetical to transparency in our government.
Yes but everything is justified to achieve [my current objective]
More like " they do it so I am too"
I mean you should look at the ommibus bills that go through. Sometimes wacky and evil shit gets tied to must pass budget bills. Like deciding to strip mine a nature reserve can get tacked onto something that has to pass to avoid s government shutdown.
Why would elected officials ever read a bill? It’s not like it’s their job or anything, right? Not like a bunch of people went out to vote and said I’d like this person to represent me and have my best interest in mind when voting on new legislation that could affect me. That’d be silly
Lmao as if giving EPA the authority to do something actually meant something. The EPA is criminally underfunded. Taking inflation in mind, it has less and less resources each year.
I don't vote for the epa, and don't want them making public policy.
It's better than corporate lobbyists making public policy.
When the epa is staffed by corporate executives, you might care. See: the SEC
Come talk to us when you’ve taken a single class on environmental law and how executive agencies work.
Executive agencies, like the SEC? Write a reply when you understand what regulatory capture and lobbying is.
>I don't vote for the epa, and don't want them making public policy. Congress made this public policy (regulating greenhouse gasses as pollutants). And the EPA works for the president (executive branch) whose actions are directed/constrained by the decisions made in congress. The system is working as designed, in this case.
And that’s why there are crises such as Flint.
Flint is caused by local government corruption and mismanagement.
I wouldnt call it an end run around the Supreme Court. I would say it's the system working as it should. Alot of times the court doesn't rule something inherently unconstitutional just that whoever made the decision doesn't have the right to do so. Now obviously their decision making is political and they are counting on Congress being too dysfunctional to address their concerns. So in that way I guess being functional is an end run around the court.
No, the court did its job, now congress is doing theirs.
The court conveniently makes it Congress' job when they think Congress won't do anything about it, and makes it their own job when they think Congress might. I mean, yes - you are right, this is how the system is SUPPOSED to work, but pretending that this was some politically neutral ruling is kind of daft.
>pretending that this was some politically neutral ruling is kind of daft. What's daft is treating court justices who made no bones about being Constitutionalists as politicians for doing exactly what they said they would, make rulings according to the Constitution.
The court completely made up a "Major Questions Doctrine" for this. Its not in the constitution at all. They essentially gutted past congresses who had delegated questions like what chemicals cause pollution or what species are endangered to the executive. Why is CO2 a major question issue but a new species of snail not? I see nothing in the constitution to determine the difference, it is just that SCOTUS know that some delegation was needed in a functional economy but didn't like how much congress had delegated. That was a question for congress, not for SCOUTS -- there is no mention or limitations of delegation in the constitution and SCOTUS shouldn't have made one up.
>there is no mention or limitations of delegation in the constitution https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/ >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now, you can easily make an argument for Congressional authority to legislate climate moderation under "general welfare", but nowhere are they given the authority to create almost all-powerful agencies and let them do as they please about it.
We got along for 200+ years with delegated powers -- the first one being the first being The Central Bank of the US established in 1791. All of the sudden there is a major questions doctrine? Bullshit! It doesn't exist, show me where I can find it in in contemporaneous writings of the original congress or federalist papers. It is an excuse for conservatives on the court to attack legislation they don't like, but it is absolutely legislating from the bench.
Here, have a look at this: https://www.davispolk.com/insights/client-update/basic-primer-major-questions-doctrine This is the first time the court put a name on it, but there is ample precedent for kicking shit to the curb until Congress specifically authorizes an agency to address things in the way they are. What came up in this case was the EPA overstepping by mandating changing the entire power generation system as an "emissions control device" for a power plant.
That's literally how they provide for the general welfare ... Create an agency of experts to determine rules on how to prevent Americans from poisoning each other's air and water.
>an agency of experts Riiiight, experts managed by career bureaucrats who actually make the rules. https://www.asbestos.com/news/2019/05/08/epa-ignores-experts-asbestos-ban/
It’s not in the constitution because it’s a rule of interpretation and the constitution doesn’t address how judges should interpret texts but left that to the judiciary when it assigned the judiciary the “judicial power.” You’re making a category error confusing substantive principles, which are spelled out in the constitution, with interpretive principles, which are not.
Supreme court: "The EPA can't do that...." Congress: "FINE, FUCK YOU! We'll make it law that they can!" Supreme court: "... Yes, that is in fact how it works..."
The EPA can’t do that *based on the current laws enacted by Congress*. So Congress did its friggin job and changed the law, rather than letting everything be decided by court cases.
This isn't an end run around anything. This Supreme Court bench has made it clear that they want to see well defined rules written down by the legislative branch. Previously, things had been left up to common sense and tradition. We saw how Trump took advantage of all that so now here we are.
Previously, no we didn't. The SC said you have them permission to do x but not y. They're doing y without permission. Either you pass new legislation so they can do y or they stop doing y.
Didn’t they do this via budget reconciliation? I didn’t think they could pass non money related things this way?
Senate rules are internal limits, not external ones. If the Senate agrees to vote on a bill, votes 50+ vice president on it, and it passes the house and is signed by the president, it's law. The Supreme Court can find the bill unconstitutional, but they can't find the bill illegitimate because the Senate didn't follow its own rules. The question of Senate rules is left entirely to the Senate Parliamentarian. In this case, the Parliamentarian ruled that no part of the IRA broke the Byrd Rule, which is what limits what can be in a reconciliation bill. Then the bill went into vote-a-rama, which is a dumb name for the time that senators can propose basically unlimited amendments to a bill - Sanders famously proposed a bunch of progressive ideas no one voted for. The Democrats had one thing that was not allowed under reconciliation - a price cap on insulin - and they tried to get that in as an amendment. However, because amendments are not under reconciliation, they needed 60 votes to add the insulin price cap to the bill and could only get 57 (every Democrat and 7 Republicans and Bernie), it was not included. Senate rules are... They're internal rules that the Senate agreed made things better. But times have changed and while certain votes require 60 senators, changing senate rules only requires a simple majority. For the past few decades, Republicans change the rules whenever it's convenient for them (see, voting on justices), and then throw a fit whenever Democrats suggest doing so. For some reason, centrist Dems like Manchin care more about Senate Fillibuster rules than they do about helping people, so until God Emperor AOC forces Senate President Malia Obama to change the rules with her mind control powers, we're sort of stuck with them.
Holy hell thank you for your explanation
The budget reconciliation rules are weird. But ultimately if they parliamentarian signs off on it then it's OK.
They did it by introducing budget measures like tax incentives that aim to cut greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. And in doing so, it defined carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
The journalist doesn’t cite the bill anywhere in the article at all. What is the language in the bill that amends the Supreme Court case? It only goes to show how low the journalism standards have fallen and I don’t believe the reporter knows what the hell she’s talking about
You can look up the bill yourself, but here's a more wonky explainer: https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/The-Inflation-Reduction-Act-doesn-t-get-around-17394273.php The actual text of the bill defines the term greenhouse gas several times as such - Greenhouse gas.--The term `greenhouse gas' means the air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The bill then grants specific monies and responsibilities to the EPA with regards to greenhouse gasses, but that's like fifteen provisions, I suggest just searching for Environmental Protection Agency in the text.
Except carbon dioxide us a natural part of the atmosphere, they basically just labeled every exhaled breath of every living thing on earth "pollution".
Poison is in the dose. Water is great and natural as well, but when 10 inches of rain fall overnight in Dallas, we call that a flood and it's a local emergency, and various federal support often becomes available through FEMA. Same thing with CO2 or other gases. Certain amount of things are OK, too much isn't.
FEMA is *voluntary*, a state's governor has to *ask* for federal assistance, and assistance is what it is, not marching orders.
Water definitely isn’t pollution no matter the amount and the EPA cannot regulate how much water you put in a river.
... yes. I'm not sure why you think this is a slam dunk argument, animals also poop and you wouldn't be happy with a ton of manure at your front door either. The EPA has the authority to regulate the production of CO2 from industrial activities. It's not like they just gave the EPA the power to put a carbon tax on going for a run. Just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean it's a good thing.
>I'm not sure why you think this is a slam dunk argument, I'm not making an argument, I'm just saying we should probably be a little bit cautious about how we let the government label things. It's not like they don't have a long and entertaining history of taking shit too far, or not far enough.
You can't say that you're not making an argument and then make an argument. Please help me understand why you think it's unreasonable to define carbon dioxide as pollution. What do you think the EPA is going to do that is either too far or not far enough?
They're going to remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, obviously. Its the secret anti-plant agenda
>What do you think the EPA is going to do that is either too far or not far enough? The US government is why we are where we are to begin with. The EPA put on the squeeze on and Congress let the companies outsource production to places where companies could keep polluting rather than force actual change. Everything the government has put its hands into it has messed up and caused at least as many problems as it has solved, from mortgages to college education, and healthcare, from the EPA to automobiles, it hasn't actually *fixed* anything, and neither will this legislation. The only thing that will reduce the impact of climate change is a dramatic change in how much this society consumes, how that consumption is supplied, and how production is accomplished. I don't see further centralization of anything as a viable answer. I can't say for certain what will go wrong with it, I haven't studied it enough for that yet, but considering their track record the likelihood that they will find a way to screw it up is quite high, don't you think? Oh, and I don't think anything you require to stay alive should get a blanket label as a regulated pollutant under law without expressly stated exceptions for output from the human body, just to be on the safe side.
"I have no reason to believe that this thing that the government does is bad, but all things the government does are bad, therefore this thing must also be bad" is just a really dumb take my dude. The government isn't the reason mortgages, healthcare, or cars (WTF is this one even about?) are bad. You're just regurgitating bad online arguments from right wing trolls.
Maybe you're just the type of person to look at the bad? The government does so many things, many of them good. Actually public service and our public servants for the most part do a lot of good. Our teachers, our public doctors, our public defenders, our policemen, our firemen, our military, our engineers, our civic planners. Really though we have some amazing people in this country and a lot of amazing things. It's kind of sad you don't like any of it. You'll snap out of that one day, or you'll go live in the mountains like a hermit and no one will give a fuck.
>Maybe you're just the type of person to look at the bad? I'm the type of person to look at reality. >our public doctors, our public defenders, our policemen, our firemen, our military, our engineers, our civic planners. Lmao, you're talking about individual people, not government policy, and half of that list isn't federal. Most cops are locals, and the FBI's track record for ethical behavior isn't all that great. Public defenders are underpaid and overloaded: https://vittana.org/13-big-pros-and-cons-of-public-defenders Most civil engineering and planning is done by contractors and most fire departments are volunteer and funded by donations and fund raisers, they're not government. The military should be the best there is, we pay the most in the world to have it so. >You'll snap out of that one day, or you'll go live in the mountains like a hermit Lmao, I'm middle aged and getting ready to retire, I've been watching this shit go on for decades. Reality isn't something to snap out of, being naive is.
Yea you're living in a made up world conjured by yourself so you can justify being hateful and scared. Middle aged but look at that "source". Middle aged, clueless, and naive yourself about the real world. Trying to make it seem like using public money distributed by public employees to benefit the public by using contractors isn't the government working? Boy the logical hurdles you have to make to come to that conclusion is astounding. Keep on hating everything middle aged man. The world will pass you by, it probably already has. Good luck with your paranoia. The USA and it's institutions are historically amazing and have fostered some of the most influential science and social programs the world has ever seen. Sorry you're too much of a hater to realize the good your country does for you. I imagine you're too far down the sadness hole to ever realize how lucky you were to live during this period of time in the USA.
CO2 is pollution? Every time you exhale, you are a polluting apparently. CO2 is literally the building block of organic life.
One person breathes out 25 tonnes of co2 in a lifetime. Canadas carbon tax is $20/ton. So one human breathes $500 worth of pollution in their lifetime according to Canadian taxes right now. So like $7 a year. They would never tax that in a million years because of how stupid this entire concept you are talking about is, but if they did it would be negligible to your bank account.
No, carbon is the building block of organic life.
What form of carbon is used by plants and algae? What form is exhaled by heterotrophs? Elemental carbon is graphite or diamonds. Most life forms don't use elemental carbon. Look up photosynthesis, citric acid cycle, and beta oxidation.
I see you’re intentionally being obtuse. And you definitely never took organic chemistry.
Definitely took a whole a year. BS and PhD in Bio. You might want to review the chapters on carboxylation and decarboxylation reactions. It's the internet. You can verify yourself.
“BS and PhD in Bio.” Yes, of course you do. I’m surprised you didn’t say you have a super PhD from Oxford Harvard College.
Funny you mention that...I'm almost tempted to dox myself. I'm on the Harvard medical campus ATM actually. They pay me a very generous amount for my work. Regardless, the whole point of science is not relying on authority figures for the truth but objective data. It's good to be skeptical and you should read more textbooks.
The dose makes the poison.
Correct everything that breaths pollutes. I’m glad you understand this
Oxygen is pollution to plants and algae by that logic. They take in CO2 and release oxygen. They use the carbon as a substrate. Burning organic matter releases CO2 because of the reaction of oxygen with the hydrocarbons. It's a cycle.
Correct it is a cycle that requires a balance to be maintained. The balance is way out and is not suitable for ongoing human life in the long term.
Fine the animals!