The EPA prepares for its 'counterpunch' after the Supreme Court ruling...

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
112,076
84,625
113
The Supreme Court's ruling that curbs the power of the Environment Protection Agency will slow its ability to respond to the climate crisis, but "does not take the EPA out of the game," according to the agency's administrator Michael Regan.

The Court on Thursday ruled that the EPA does not have the authority to set limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants.

Regan labeled the move a setback and said it made the U.S. less competitive globally.

"Over the past 18 months or so, [the EPA] has done a really good job of focusing on the full suite of climate pollutants," he said. "Power plants play a significant role in this larger picture and that's why the Supreme Court's ruling is disappointing, because it's slowing down the momentum of not only curtailing climate change impacts, but the globally competitive aspects that this country can seize to create jobs and grow economic opportunities."

President Biden has set a goal for an emissions-free power sector by 2035 and yesterday said the ruling was "another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards."


"While this decision risks damaging our nation's ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis," he said in a statement.

Regan said the EPA was taking time to review the ruling and he called on Americans to speak out.

"When we see the setbacks, we will take these punches, absorb them, but then come back with a counterpunch," he said. "We're going to move forward with every legal authority to regulate climate pollution and protect communities that we have."

"Rulings like yesterday prevent us from moving forward as quickly as we would like. So Americans should use their voices as much as possible to ensure that we can move forward and do the things that the American people would like for us to do."

The Biden administration came into office with the most ambitious climate agenda of any president, including the pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of this decade, based on 2005 levels.

Regan wouldn't be drawn on whether there could be ripple effects on the rest of the world's ability to fight the effects of climate change if the U.S. failed to meet its own targets, and instead focused on the work the EPA had already achieved.

But he did say the court's ruling was a hurdle on meeting those targets.

"The Court's ruling, obviously, puts a speed bump in the path of the important work that this agency and other agencies would like to pursue. We will continue to keep our eye on the Court now and in the future."


😲 😲 😲 😲 😲 😲 😲
 

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,674
2,617
113
I assume this decision just prevented energy prices from sky rocketing. So i guess this is good news with inflation at 8+%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: globalhawk

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,674
2,617
113
I also find it interesting how the government wants to limit carbon emissions but they dont care about our forests and oceans which are being destroyed. All they want to do is destroy nature so we can build more stuff so we can have more people.
 

SolarHawk

HR MVP
Jun 27, 2021
1,384
2,972
113
I also find it interesting how the government wants to limit carbon emissions but they dont care about our forests and oceans which are being destroyed. All they want to do is destroy nature so we can build more stuff so we can have more people.
They don’t care about forests and oceans? Wut?
 

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,674
2,617
113
They don’t care about forests and oceans? Wut?
Urban sprawl is out of control. New forest is planted, but a 5 year old tree is not the same as an 80 year old forest.
Ocean habitat is being destroyed, we dump trash directly into the ocean, chemical pollution, farm runoff, over fishing, unsustainable fishing practices.

I would say the world does not take care of our forests and oceans.
 

SolarHawk

HR MVP
Jun 27, 2021
1,384
2,972
113
Urban sprawl is out of control. New forest is planted, but a 5 year old tree is not the same as an 80 year old forest.
Ocean habitat is being destroyed, we dump trash directly into the ocean, chemical pollution, farm runoff, over fishing, unsustainable fishing practices.

I would say the world does not take care of our forests and oceans.
Yes, and that’s why bad policy and laws have devastating effects. It can take decades to reverse course and straighten the ship. One side of the aisle is at least pretending to try and do something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,674
2,617
113
Yes, and that’s why bad policy and laws have devastating effects. It can take decades to reverse course and straighten the ship. One side of the aisle is at least pretending to try and do something.
I am all for decreasing polution into the environment. I fear that the political agendas are being guided by profits rather than effectiveness.

One missing point that we never hear about is our population. The reason we need all this energy production is because we have too many people who love to buy stuff.

World population is expected to reach 9+ billion people by 2050. When you increase the population by that much, we will increase the destruction to our environment. I dont care what carbon bills are passed, there is a certain point were it is not sustainable. Until political leaders address population growth, everything else is just a bandaid.

We also have an economic system based on growth. this system leads to excessive waste and cheating so their stock prices will improve. Why not change our economic system to be based off efficiency instead. This would likely decrease a lot of the waste and as a result decrease carbon production.

I personally am not on board for the all electric everything. according to the epa, 25% of carbon emmissions come from electricity production. compared to 27% for transportation and 24% for industry. I dont think putting up windmills or huge solar panel fields is the answer.

An example of this is the way cows have gotten a bad rap for co2 production. As it turns out, factory farming is very bad for the environment. It leads to bad water quality, increased greenhouse gasses, increased deforestation due to corn production for food, etc. But when cows are allowed to graze in grass and tree covered land without too many shoved into a small location, cows are actually very good for the environment. They spread seeds for vegetation to grow so more carbon can be sequestered into the ground. They are part of a stable ecosystem. So why dont we see a push from the government to get rid of factory farming since it is so destructive to the environment and the people?
 

SA_Hawk

HR All-State
Jan 8, 2022
817
1,292
93
Lincoln, NE
iowa.rivals.com
Urban sprawl is out of control. New forest is planted, but a 5 year old tree is not the same as an 80 year old forest.
Ocean habitat is being destroyed, we dump trash directly into the ocean, chemical pollution, farm runoff, over fishing, unsustainable fishing practices.

I would say the world does not take care of our forests and oceans.
If Democrats didn't run every major city into the ground people wouldn't be flocking to the suburbs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky

SA_Hawk

HR All-State
Jan 8, 2022
817
1,292
93
Lincoln, NE
iowa.rivals.com
I am all for decreasing polution into the environment. I fear that the political agendas are being guided by profits rather than effectiveness.

One missing point that we never hear about is our population. The reason we need all this energy production is because we have too many people who love to buy stuff.

World population is expected to reach 9+ billion people by 2050. When you increase the population by that much, we will increase the destruction to our environment. I dont care what carbon bills are passed, there is a certain point were it is not sustainable. Until political leaders address population growth, everything else is just a bandaid.

We also have an economic system based on growth. this system leads to excessive waste and cheating so their stock prices will improve. Why not change our economic system to be based off efficiency instead. This would likely decrease a lot of the waste and as a result decrease carbon production.

I personally am not on board for the all electric everything. according to the epa, 25% of carbon emmissions come from electricity production. compared to 27% for transportation and 24% for industry. I dont think putting up windmills or huge solar panel fields is the answer.

An example of this is the way cows have gotten a bad rap for co2 production. As it turns out, factory farming is very bad for the environment. It leads to bad water quality, increased greenhouse gasses, increased deforestation due to corn production for food, etc. But when cows are allowed to graze in grass and tree covered land without too many shoved into a small location, cows are actually very good for the environment. They spread seeds for vegetation to grow so more carbon can be sequestered into the ground. They are part of a stable ecosystem. So why dont we see a push from the government to get rid of factory farming since it is so destructive to the environment and the people?
Get rid of factory farming and you'll get a reduction in population via people starving to death.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
112,076
84,625
113
Get rid of factory farming and you'll get a reduction in population via people starving to death.

think-smart.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: SA_Hawk

coloradonoles

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
10,034
4,172
113
Houston, TX
Some of you need to soend a few minutes on the DOE website and look up the energy projections for 2050 and beyond...

Here's a hint, we will use more fossil fuels than we use today.

Emissions free is a pipe dream. I work in this industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky

SolarHawk

HR MVP
Jun 27, 2021
1,384
2,972
113
I am all for decreasing polution into the environment. I fear that the political agendas are being guided by profits rather than effectiveness.

One missing point that we never hear about is our population. The reason we need all this energy production is because we have too many people who love to buy stuff.

World population is expected to reach 9+ billion people by 2050. When you increase the population by that much, we will increase the destruction to our environment. I dont care what carbon bills are passed, there is a certain point were it is not sustainable. Until political leaders address population growth, everything else is just a bandaid.

We also have an economic system based on growth. this system leads to excessive waste and cheating so their stock prices will improve. Why not change our economic system to be based off efficiency instead. This would likely decrease a lot of the waste and as a result decrease carbon production.

I personally am not on board for the all electric everything. according to the epa, 25% of carbon emmissions come from electricity production. compared to 27% for transportation and 24% for industry. I dont think putting up windmills or huge solar panel fields is the answer.

An example of this is the way cows have gotten a bad rap for co2 production. As it turns out, factory farming is very bad for the environment. It leads to bad water quality, increased greenhouse gasses, increased deforestation due to corn production for food, etc. But when cows are allowed to graze in grass and tree covered land without too many shoved into a small location, cows are actually very good for the environment. They spread seeds for vegetation to grow so more carbon can be sequestered into the ground. They are part of a stable ecosystem. So why dont we see a push from the government to get rid of factory farming since it is so destructive to the environment and the people?
If every home had solar panels that would be more than enough to power the country. The problem with solar right now is energy storage, which will come with time. Solars not the only answer, but it’s part of it for sure. And yes, the world population growth is not sustainable for this planet, that’s why we must look to the stars if we’re to survive long term.
 

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,674
2,617
113
If every home had solar panels that would be more than enough to power the country. The problem with solar right now is energy storage, which will come with time. Solars not the only answer, but it’s part of it for sure. And yes, the world population growth is not sustainable for this planet, that’s why we must look to the stars if we’re to survive long term.
Do we have enough resources for everyone to have solar on their house? I dont know the answer to that.
 

SB_SB

HR Heisman
Apr 4, 2006
6,135
5,983
113
The idea that a government agency would "counterpunch" the supreme court is frightening. Everybody needs to turn the dial down....

You're joking right? The word counterpunch is what has you all concerned. What about white nationalists walking around with guns, that doesn't need to be dialed down? What about your Gov taking on Mickey Mouse, that doesn't concern you? What about Cruz taking on Elmo, that doesn't concern you? And what about that day in Jan, that's ok for you? I find it funny that now you feel the need to "dial down", you're about 4-6 years too late.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
112,076
84,625
113
You're joking right? The word counterpunch is what has you all concerned. What about white nationalists walking around with guns, that doesn't need to be dialed down? What about your Gov taking on Mickey Mouse, that doesn't concern you? What about Cruz taking on Elmo, that doesn't concern you? And what about that day in Jan, that's ok for you? I find it funny that now you feel the need to "dial down", you're about 4-6 years too late.

What part of the word "everybody" did you not understand?
 

SB_SB

HR Heisman
Apr 4, 2006
6,135
5,983
113
What part of the word "everybody" did you not understand?

As I said, you're about 4-6 years late. You waited until the EPA said counter-punch? That's the word that triggered it for you, and it had to come from the EPA? Nice of you to finally show up.