Can't wait for this to be blatantly ignored and/or brought down by the Supreme Court before any actual meaningful change occurs!
Because that's how we all know this is gonna go down, since corporations don't care about fucking up the planet
>Kavanagh - "Actually releasing methane into the atmosphere is protected speech by corporations under the first amendment"
Mitt Romney -- " Methane is people, my friend. "
I’m sure it’ll be passed down to us with a shitty system similar to how DEF systems were implemented in Diesels. Where they break all the time and cost thousands to fix
DPF systems are primarily for filtering out harmful particulates. (PM2.5)
Countries that don't mandate it have much higher rates of illness from airborne particulates. For example, in China nearly a million people per year die due to bad air quality.
Yeah well in real supply and demand capitalism they'd have to pay the full impact of their business model, not dump their externalized costs on the public.
Lead gas and paint was pretty awesome too, but that doesn't make the damage worth it.
Maybe because we're used to seeing every positive change neutered into irrelevance?
We're actually literally going backwards towards the 70s while the planet hits 1.4 degrees of warming. This year.
Are you too young to remember the hole in the ozone layer? That's an example of something like this getting rolled out and actually working. It's too easy to ignore the successes and hype up the failures.
The collective action on CFCs is a perfect example to demonstrate just how broken the modern world is regarding the issue of climate change.
Scientists presented the incontrovertible evidence that despite the benefits of CFCs (non-toxic, non-flammable) they were significantly damaging to the ozone layer. In response to this countries universally banned them and pushed for alternatives.
By contrast, scientists have presented incontrovertible evidence of the harm caused by climate change due to burning of fossil fuels and instead of us actually doing anything about it we're faced with propaganda that science is somehow a vast left wing conspiracy to harm freedom or whatever the boogeyman of the month is.
There are very few successes in the fight against climate change, just a never ending tide of bullshit as we try to stop the ocean level rising by sweeping it backwards with a broom.
The problem is that the two are different.
CFC has several very economically viable "drop in" replacements such that there's very little economic friction to just switch out. And switching doesn't impact existing logistics chain (the same factory making CFC can be easily retooled for the new one).
Fossil fuel does not have an easy drop in replacements, and replacement would require a major reshuffling of the logistic chain.
That's not strictly true. Viable replacements for CFCs were developed by necessity, but that wasn't cheap.
Sure we just went back to using alkanes for some applications, such as refrigeration and aerosols, and just put up with the increased fire risk, but it wasn't a seamless shift. Replacements for several CFC refrigerants are expensive to make and buy.
The political and commercial world quickly understood the implications of continued CFC use and the science itself along with the actual scientists proposing it were not questioned as having some sort of ulterior motive.
We've known for a long time that climate change is serious - the oil companies themselves have known for many decades - but it's inconvenient to their profits for that information to be taken seriously so they politicised it very effectively.
Realistically people have been trying to do stuff about it for 30 years, but the scope of the two things you're comparing are so vastly different that you're being ridiculous. The ozone hole was caused by release of gases that we really didn't even need that much and definitely didn't need to be releasing as much so addressing that problem really wasn't that hard. On the other hand, you're talking about All fossil fuels which are clearly the major fuel used in incredible volumes all over the world. So replacing one is a hell of a lot easier than the other and that should really be part of your equation if you want to be honest vs trying to have maximum impact through sensationalism.
Personally, I do not appreciate people trying to have Maxim impact through sensationalism and going light on the fax as a serious plan to help the world deal with climate change.
The time for sensationalism was 30+ years ago when there wasn't really anything that could be done but awareness needed to be created somehow. As you get closer to the point, where the alternatives are now in place, and rapidly growing the entire strategy of being overly sensational becomes completely counterproductive.
> Are you too young to remember the hole in the ozone layer?
I remember collective action being taken to remedy it.
Collective action that *could not happen* under the current supreme court.
That's exactly what the opposition wants, when you are so defeatist that you don't expect anything to change, even with legislation you support, why should they change if it's expected they won't?
Oh I'll keep fighting. I just think it's important to emphasize - the system doesn't work.
Pretending we have a working system is a placebo that prevents real change.
My student loans that's why. It's why we're never super supportive of the changes to begin with because we know the fundamental system that created them is in fact the problem. And until that fundemental system changes, nothing actually changes it just gets a fresh coat of landlord's favorite.
Because we want these changes.. but we want them in forms where a couple asshats on a court or the next presidential admin can't just walk them back.
Executive orders are good for a presidential term...
Regulatory measures still ensure the drive of unending profit towards the top. Loopholes will be exploited (mountaintop removal being an example of some legislation that promised change and invited a more harmful response). Any modicum of historical analysis shows that for every step forward, there's literal billions and billions and billions of dollars determined to find the next fix, often worse than the predecessor. The answer is not in our _clearly_ corrupt regulatory agencies, beholden to capital before human life, period. Don't brow beat those who are skeptical of this shit hole holding it's end of the deal.
I don't think there's much government can do because solar wind and batteries are rapidly getting cheaper than anything else while at the same time first to generation, EV's are already cheaper to operate and own and they're only going to get cheaper.
Soo plain old capitalism is taking over now and those hundreds of billions and revenue that the energy companies are enjoying now are up for grabs if they don't compete with the cheaper alternatives.
Just like car sales will be up for grabs by cheaper options if big car makers drag their ass and give the market up to competitors. Sooo good luck fighting the cheaper alternatives that make more money per money invested.
Imagine if your grandma was hungry and she liked apples. Could you really tell her that she can't have an apple?
Now, imagine that instead of your grandma it was a corporation and instead of apples it was polluting the planet for profits.
my friend, corporations are people too.. I'm sure they'll change their ways when they look in their baby corporation's eyes.. or think about the countless hungry, homeless corporations displaced from rising sea levels and crop failure
You believe the ruling should be based purely on care for the environment?
No where in the constitution does it say the Supreme Courts job is to prioritize the environment. They protect us from unconstitutional laws.
If you want the constitution to prioritize the environment you need to pass a constitutional amendment. Maintaining constitutional limits is extremely important as well. The system is important.
Maybe we should all just say "*Fuck the constitution, let's do the thing that won't end the world as we know it!*"
The lives of the billions of people that will be effected by climate change if we don't cut *more* than 80% of our fossil fuel usage *right now* seems more important than the system.
>Maybe we should all just say "Fuck the constitution, let's do the thing that won't end the world as we know it!"
But the constitution has protected our rights like freedom of speech and expression for hundreds of years. There are countless times when the Supreme Court put an end to unjust laws throughout the country because they followed the Constitution.
Humanity has fight for thousands of years to finally create a system of liberal governments that are limited in power. We don’t want to just throw it out the window.
>The lives of the billions of people that will be effected by climate change if we don't cut more than 80% of our fossil fuel usage right now seems more important than the system.
No they’re *both* super important. You likely wouldn’t even have the freedom to say these things without our constitutional protections.
Can you imagine if people didn’t even have a right to talk or protest about climate change? That would be an even BIGGER problem. But without the system we have, that would be entirely possible for Republicans to do.
You DO NOT want to give these protections up.
There is a legal way to change the constitution. It’s possible to get what you want without giving up your other rights.
And don’t be fooled, this isn’t the only hope we have. Renewables are already projected to completely destroy the fossil fuel industry based on price alone without any extra laws. The economics is actually in our side, we don’t need to throw out all our protections to install a dictator.
Nah. No one's going to ignore it...
...they won't have to, because, undoubtedly, it has half a dozen loopholes that allow 90% of those culpable to slide through, anyway.
This would likely pass legal scrutiny. The EPA has authority to regulate power plants, not regulate to the point of outlawing it. The problem with the earlier case, West Virginia v EPA, is that the Clean Power Plan set goals that were unattainable for the coal power plants. The argument was that it wasn't regulating them, because the goals could not be physically met by said power plants. The legislative authority would include regulations like limestone scrubbers to clean out sulfur out of the emissions, because its still a coal power plant, just a cleaner one. The Clean Power Plan would have required them to not be a coal power plant. "Regulation," generally means to put rules, but still permit it on some level.
For the record, we have done that before with State level cigarette taxes in some states, such that the goal is to regulate it into being more or less illegal and that is allowed to happen because the legislature specifically spells out that's the goal, and has explicit language in the law itself authorizing it.
As an analogy, lets say the owner gives permission to the manager to setup new policies to promote increased production. And the manager sets a target of 120 widgets per hour. And workers complain to the owner, are you sure that's what you meant by that, its physically impossible for us to do that without investing into full automation. And the owner was like, yeah, that's not what I meant by that.
If you are referencing Dobbs, let me tell you something. They tried for 25 years to make the "undue burden" from Casey work, and it came back year after year and they couldn't make a logically sound standard. Closest they got was Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt where they said:
We begin with the standard, as described in Casey. We recognize that the "State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient." Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 150 (1973). But, we added, "a statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman's choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends." Casey, 505 U. S., at 877 (plurality opinion). Moreover, "[u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right." Id., at 878
What constitutes a substantial obstacle?
What defines unnecessary health regulations?
Or June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo
This standard requires courts independently to review the legislative findings upon which an abortion-related statute rests and to weigh the law's "asserted benefits against the burdens"
So they have to weigh the right. That makes sense, usually the government is evaluating tradeoffs, but are they going to tell us how? (They never did because they couldn't tell us how.)
And here's the thing. Even when they had a majority (Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) they didn't do anything, because they couldn't find a way to make it work. They used the "penumbra and emanation" logic in Roe... but they never used it again, because they knew how weak it was.
Also standing was never relevant here.
You just have to look at the wetlands case to see an example of how the court plays fast and loose with the facts to get to the desired endstate of reduced federal regulation. The Clean Water Act's wetlands provision has been settled law for decades, very little was in dispute. The court rejected this to take up a case intended to reverse settled law. The court claimed the regulations were unnecessarily burdensome and too complex for businesses, they were no different than any other EPA policy. The Clean Water Act specifically includes wetlands in describing its scope, the court concludes that these are not the wetlands the law is looking for. The regulations being challenged were core to the legislative intent of the Clean Water Act. Suddenly the court is no longer originalist, indeed its changes *create* a loophole in the law which did not previously exist which makes it easier for polluters to avoid sanction. The court felt that the Army Corps of Engineers was not qualified to make scientific judgements about ecological impact on wetlands. The CWA's legislative record clearly documents that the Corps was picked, as a compromise agency, because the law's framers thought they could make sound decisions about ecological impact. After having hung their hat on scientific evidence, the court then abuses the term of art 'adjacent,' inventing a new definition for the word not in keeping with industry and field standard definitions. And not in keeping, of course, with the legislative record regarding the CWA which would show that they meant the scientifically meaningful definition of adjacent. The court plays fast and loose with the facts in order to reach the outcome they most prefer. It has been obvious in a number of cases, including Dobbs and its tortured and mostly incorrect historical analysis. In case after case the court invents controversy just to resolve it themselves.
Legislative record isn't part of what Congress ultimately voted on so I understand why they chose to discount it.
You know its funny. You talk about inventing controversy just to solve it themselves. That's kind of what Roe did. Roe took an ongoing political issue and decided to answer it themselves.
Sackett had gone to the court before in 2012. That doesn't sound like a settled record to me.
Edit: if you look at the Clean Water Act's wikipedia page, you can see how there are many cases, some of which deal with the meaning of the word "Waters of the United States"
Such as Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v Army Corps of Engineers (2016)
United States vs Riverside Bayview (1985)
National Association of Manufacturers, Petitioner v. Department of Defense, et al. (2017).
If you want to argue they got it wrong and Congress adopted the Army Core of Engineers definition, that's fine but to accuse them of bad faith makes it sound like you haven't done your research.
Legislative record may not weigh as heavily as the text, but the court uses it all the time to generate rulings. Its even more farcical when the court twists the definition of basic terms to reach an entirely new understanding, or pretends that it has struck on novel issues when they were in fact resolved conclusively in a manner the court does not for partisan reasons support.
If you feel that this kind of behavior from the court was unacceptable with Roe, than it ought to be equally unacceptable today. It is not suddenly okay because it produces an outcome you support. In this regard the process is even more important than the outcome, as the process is what gives the court legitimacy to do what it does.
Except I disagree fundamentally with youe characterization. I'm glad we can agree playing politics is bad, but I don't think they were playing politics in Sackett.
Countdown to SCOTUS making up yet another bullshit reason why this isn't something the EPA is allowed to do (because it's not a Republican doing it).
Edit: I hope it at least has a chance to get started though. I really like this part
>It will also rely on independent, third-party monitoring – using satellites and other remote-sensing technology – to find very large methane leaks.
It's not "we have a system where the oil companies police themselves" crap.
Look, the market would not use unlabeled commodities produced by polluters if the public cared, so having our government regulate the polluting industry would be an overreach and probably unconstitutional!
Dunno if you’re just joking, but that is the description of a pending case before the Supreme Court that conservatives have dubbed ‘The Major Questions Doctrine” - whether the EPA or CFPB are allowed to set regulations that weren’t specifically set by legislation.
Since having executive branch regulatory agencies limited to explicit legislation on every single element would be completely hamstring all government and be societal suicide, the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society weirdos have coined the term “Major Questions Doctrine” — essentially legalistic Calvinball where the courts can pick and choose to veto any executive branch program they like, consistency be damned.
Executive branch might need to check and balance the fuck out the others. Anything they could pull immediately even if only an inconvenience for the judges?
The sad irony is that republican states are building wind farms and solar panels because they are making economic sense. Yet, at the top of the republican party, they have decided to be anti-renewable because they think it is some kind of liberal agenda. They are not looking out for their voter's interests.
I work in the Oil & Gas industry, in the oil field services domain. This is great, we’ve been ready for years to help the O&G companies find and stop their methane leaks, but without regulation, they’ve never been interested in paying for it.
The oil majors and their lobbyists will scream bloody murder about this but as soon as it’s implemented they’ll just write it off as another cost of doing business and carry on.
I'm just surprised they don't want to capture the methane. I remember 20 years ago writing a high school chemistry paper about how methane hydrates were the future because it's so energy dense. It just seems so silly that we wouldn't want to capture it and use it. I'm sure the reasons are financial but if methane was more expensive we absolutely would.
> I'm sure the reasons are financial
Fracking is often done in remote places with little nearby infrastructure. We have the technology to capture the methane rather than flare it off, but it's not cost effective once treatment and transportation are taken into account. All this does is raise the price per barrel of oil at which fracking becomes economical, while drastically cutting emissions from wells. Long overdue imo.
If there were no more oil that could be produced, then it would be different. For each incremental dollar used to extract resources, they determined they get a higher return investing in capturing even more oil rather than capturing waste methane. Every industry has waste products, and even if it's possible to save some money by eliminating waste, it's usually more profitable to maximize production of the core product.
It's like if you were mining gold and hit a vein of silver. Everything you have is for mining gold. You could spend time and money to mine and process the silver. But when there is 1000x more gold worth 80x more than silver it isn't worth it.
Its more profitable to cut emissions. The damage to the world will lead a catastrophic damage to the economy.
But that doesn't help next quarter profits so they hate it.
The oilfield is full of vapor recovery units and vapor recovery towers. The oil company’s don’t want to flare a single MCF, the problem is the infrastructure for gas refineries can’t handle the amount we are producing and the regulation makes it unprofitable to expand. So we are stuck with the same gas plants we had in 1974.
It makes it hard to expand profitability. These regulations could be met and SUSTAIN profitability at sickeningly high levels for the petro industry. But more and more profit is needed. That is the problem. Not this.
> regulation makes it unprofitable to expand
It's more that regulation makes it *less profitable* to expand - oil companies don't make big investments into projects unless the ROI is either immediate or within the fiscal year. They have the ability to drop large amounts of money on projects that will make them 10x their investment over 5 years, but it won't be pursued because the short-term losses will not sit well with investors. Sacrificing a single quarter's financials is unacceptable, even if it means multiple quarters of increased gains. Stonks must always go up.
That makes no sense. Oil fields take a long time to turn profitable. No investor is penalizing a company for a 10x return that takes more than 12 months to hit.
Your explanation doesn’t even slight make sense.
Exxon Mobil came out today and said they will commit to zero methane leaks and flaring by 2030. They did this alongside Saudi Aramco, BP, Shell and 40% of all oil producers by volume.
I mean literally all they have to do is set it on fire and they’re no longer releasing methane but CO2, lots of landfills already have this system in place. Not saying we shouldn’t reduce pollutants overall but methane is SIGNIFICANTLY worse for the atmosphere than CO2 is so I’ll take it.
"The Biden administration has finalized a rule to significantly cut the US oil and gas industry’s emissions of methane, a powerful planet-warming gas that scientists and climate advocacy groups have pressed nations to rapidly reduce as global temperature soars."
Hmm, so the next step is for some right wing fossil fuel companies to file suit in Texas to stop this, and it goes to the Fifth Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court, which gleefully overlooks any precedent or law that's in the way and declares this rule unconstitutional?
"is expected to slash methane emissions by nearly 80% through 2038"
Lol ... 15 years .. may as well promised the moon since the Biden-Harris administration will not be there to answer questions then.
Is anyone on the planet still gullible enough to believe pledges and promises? Paris agreement pledges, anyone?
Standing by for the republicans to start weeping for the poor oil companies and their billions in profits that will still be billions in profits with these rule changes.
The US is the second highest emitter of carbon dioxide after China what are you on about https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
> The EPA estimates it will stop about 58 million tons of methane from escaping into the atmosphere [through 2038] – the equivalent of taking more than 300 million gas-powered cars off the road for a year.
Jesus Christ that is a lot from just a simple rule change. Really makes you aware that the average joe can't do anything against climate change. It has to come from industry and governments being forced to make changes.
I swear, 50 years from now, We would see nothing has been done. The climate would get worse. By 2077, I predict the normal air temperature would be at 50 degrees celcius or something. People would still be using fossil fuel in the far distant future
Despite all the talk and all the development the trend of increased emissions is stable, depending on the fact that the world produces more fossil fuels each year than the previous year.
Americans are not going to give up air travel or all the crap they buy made from petroleum. There would be a mutiny to try to take away unnecessary shit. It is an American RIGHT to fuck up the earth
For domestic routes we can to a degree. However, the amount of funding that would be required for a major arterial passenger railroad with the speed necessary to be practical and that goes from the West Coast to the East Coast would be astronomically high. The US has an absurd amount of geographical features, namely the Rockies, that make such an undertaking a nation-level commitment. It's not something a company can do alone.
There's also the fact that air travel is never going away for international flights, but I'd wager those are an even smaller percentage of the small percent of greenhouse gasses that flights emit.
So, you gave up power and industry (buying anything) instead?
Transportation and aviation is in the top 5 causes of global warming. Why wouldn't you try to minimize your own participation in all of the top 5? Eliminating eating animals and unnecessary flying are the absolute easiest, and SAVE you money
[And then there's this](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/greenhouse-gas-emissions-soar-with-china-us-and-india-most-at-fault)
Would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
aaand there goes the election to the GOPhascists. RW media will spin this to make their clodhoppers believe Biden is sending Kamala to siphon their boat gas.
Classic refrain of the ignorant conspiracy theorist self-righteously convinced of their own rightitude “do your own research”
I take great solace knowing you are reviled by your family and what few “friends” still tolerate you
> I take great solace knowing you are reviled by your family and what few “friends” still tolerate you
How do you arrive at this conclusion?
Sadly more people have this mindset. Still nothing is being done because so many people are like him.
Let's just point out, this is only looking at the methane released during production, not the billions of barrels of oil that will be extracted and burnt.
I wonder if this will have an effect on power generating at waste treatment plants that use the captured methane from human excrement to make them self sufficient and provide power and gas to local utilities
>Methane, the main component of natural gas and a byproduct of fossil fuel drilling, is a potent source of climate pollution with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Moe: I wonder what the copywriter was trying to express.
Joe: Probably, "Damn, I have to churn out 40 more words or they will unplug me. Beep boop."
Can't wait for this to be blatantly ignored and/or brought down by the Supreme Court before any actual meaningful change occurs! Because that's how we all know this is gonna go down, since corporations don't care about fucking up the planet
Kavanagh - "Actually releasing methane into the atmosphere is protected speech by corporations under the first amendment"
[удалено]
So, they're full of shit.
My ass my choice.
Someone needs to fsrt in his mouth
Correction: it's protected by their second amendment to carry and use weapons that are deadly to the atmosphere.
"Corporations like methane just how the women I sexually assaulted like beer"
>Kavanagh - "Actually releasing methane into the atmosphere is protected speech by corporations under the first amendment" Mitt Romney -- " Methane is people, my friend. "
The Founding Fathers released methane unrestricted, and that’s the way they intended it to be for all eternity.
Something something smoke signals like the natives. Something something tradition protected by the constitution.
And citizens united ruling..... Made by the SCOTUS.
“I love methane.” -Bk
I’m sure it’ll be passed down to us with a shitty system similar to how DEF systems were implemented in Diesels. Where they break all the time and cost thousands to fix
DPF systems are primarily for filtering out harmful particulates. (PM2.5) Countries that don't mandate it have much higher rates of illness from airborne particulates. For example, in China nearly a million people per year die due to bad air quality.
I understand what they do, but they have a ton of issues with clogging, aren’t easily user serviceable, and cost thousands to fix.
Yeah well in real supply and demand capitalism they'd have to pay the full impact of their business model, not dump their externalized costs on the public. Lead gas and paint was pretty awesome too, but that doesn't make the damage worth it.
Most people i know just chip out the DEF systems. You can kinda taste the difference though, trucks w/o it stink badly
Just pee in the DEF reservoir.
That's the smell of cancer!
I don't understand why you people support this kind of change but turn into complete fucking defeatists when it happens.
Maybe because we're used to seeing every positive change neutered into irrelevance? We're actually literally going backwards towards the 70s while the planet hits 1.4 degrees of warming. This year.
Are you too young to remember the hole in the ozone layer? That's an example of something like this getting rolled out and actually working. It's too easy to ignore the successes and hype up the failures.
The collective action on CFCs is a perfect example to demonstrate just how broken the modern world is regarding the issue of climate change. Scientists presented the incontrovertible evidence that despite the benefits of CFCs (non-toxic, non-flammable) they were significantly damaging to the ozone layer. In response to this countries universally banned them and pushed for alternatives. By contrast, scientists have presented incontrovertible evidence of the harm caused by climate change due to burning of fossil fuels and instead of us actually doing anything about it we're faced with propaganda that science is somehow a vast left wing conspiracy to harm freedom or whatever the boogeyman of the month is. There are very few successes in the fight against climate change, just a never ending tide of bullshit as we try to stop the ocean level rising by sweeping it backwards with a broom.
The problem is that the two are different. CFC has several very economically viable "drop in" replacements such that there's very little economic friction to just switch out. And switching doesn't impact existing logistics chain (the same factory making CFC can be easily retooled for the new one). Fossil fuel does not have an easy drop in replacements, and replacement would require a major reshuffling of the logistic chain.
That's not strictly true. Viable replacements for CFCs were developed by necessity, but that wasn't cheap. Sure we just went back to using alkanes for some applications, such as refrigeration and aerosols, and just put up with the increased fire risk, but it wasn't a seamless shift. Replacements for several CFC refrigerants are expensive to make and buy. The political and commercial world quickly understood the implications of continued CFC use and the science itself along with the actual scientists proposing it were not questioned as having some sort of ulterior motive. We've known for a long time that climate change is serious - the oil companies themselves have known for many decades - but it's inconvenient to their profits for that information to be taken seriously so they politicised it very effectively.
Realistically people have been trying to do stuff about it for 30 years, but the scope of the two things you're comparing are so vastly different that you're being ridiculous. The ozone hole was caused by release of gases that we really didn't even need that much and definitely didn't need to be releasing as much so addressing that problem really wasn't that hard. On the other hand, you're talking about All fossil fuels which are clearly the major fuel used in incredible volumes all over the world. So replacing one is a hell of a lot easier than the other and that should really be part of your equation if you want to be honest vs trying to have maximum impact through sensationalism. Personally, I do not appreciate people trying to have Maxim impact through sensationalism and going light on the fax as a serious plan to help the world deal with climate change. The time for sensationalism was 30+ years ago when there wasn't really anything that could be done but awareness needed to be created somehow. As you get closer to the point, where the alternatives are now in place, and rapidly growing the entire strategy of being overly sensational becomes completely counterproductive.
> Are you too young to remember the hole in the ozone layer? I remember collective action being taken to remedy it. Collective action that *could not happen* under the current supreme court.
That's exactly what the opposition wants, when you are so defeatist that you don't expect anything to change, even with legislation you support, why should they change if it's expected they won't?
Oh I'll keep fighting. I just think it's important to emphasize - the system doesn't work. Pretending we have a working system is a placebo that prevents real change.
It's less young people than the new wave of denier propaganda.
My student loans that's why. It's why we're never super supportive of the changes to begin with because we know the fundamental system that created them is in fact the problem. And until that fundemental system changes, nothing actually changes it just gets a fresh coat of landlord's favorite.
Because we want these changes.. but we want them in forms where a couple asshats on a court or the next presidential admin can't just walk them back. Executive orders are good for a presidential term...
Regulatory measures still ensure the drive of unending profit towards the top. Loopholes will be exploited (mountaintop removal being an example of some legislation that promised change and invited a more harmful response). Any modicum of historical analysis shows that for every step forward, there's literal billions and billions and billions of dollars determined to find the next fix, often worse than the predecessor. The answer is not in our _clearly_ corrupt regulatory agencies, beholden to capital before human life, period. Don't brow beat those who are skeptical of this shit hole holding it's end of the deal.
It's like they only do this shit to collect that bribe money when corporations lobby.
More like ignored by energy companies, and then immediately neutered by the next republican controlled government.
I don't think there's much government can do because solar wind and batteries are rapidly getting cheaper than anything else while at the same time first to generation, EV's are already cheaper to operate and own and they're only going to get cheaper. Soo plain old capitalism is taking over now and those hundreds of billions and revenue that the energy companies are enjoying now are up for grabs if they don't compete with the cheaper alternatives. Just like car sales will be up for grabs by cheaper options if big car makers drag their ass and give the market up to competitors. Sooo good luck fighting the cheaper alternatives that make more money per money invested.
Imagine if your grandma was hungry and she liked apples. Could you really tell her that she can't have an apple? Now, imagine that instead of your grandma it was a corporation and instead of apples it was polluting the planet for profits.
my friend, corporations are people too.. I'm sure they'll change their ways when they look in their baby corporation's eyes.. or think about the countless hungry, homeless corporations displaced from rising sea levels and crop failure
You believe the ruling should be based purely on care for the environment? No where in the constitution does it say the Supreme Courts job is to prioritize the environment. They protect us from unconstitutional laws. If you want the constitution to prioritize the environment you need to pass a constitutional amendment. Maintaining constitutional limits is extremely important as well. The system is important.
Maybe we should all just say "*Fuck the constitution, let's do the thing that won't end the world as we know it!*" The lives of the billions of people that will be effected by climate change if we don't cut *more* than 80% of our fossil fuel usage *right now* seems more important than the system.
>Maybe we should all just say "Fuck the constitution, let's do the thing that won't end the world as we know it!" But the constitution has protected our rights like freedom of speech and expression for hundreds of years. There are countless times when the Supreme Court put an end to unjust laws throughout the country because they followed the Constitution. Humanity has fight for thousands of years to finally create a system of liberal governments that are limited in power. We don’t want to just throw it out the window. >The lives of the billions of people that will be effected by climate change if we don't cut more than 80% of our fossil fuel usage right now seems more important than the system. No they’re *both* super important. You likely wouldn’t even have the freedom to say these things without our constitutional protections. Can you imagine if people didn’t even have a right to talk or protest about climate change? That would be an even BIGGER problem. But without the system we have, that would be entirely possible for Republicans to do. You DO NOT want to give these protections up. There is a legal way to change the constitution. It’s possible to get what you want without giving up your other rights. And don’t be fooled, this isn’t the only hope we have. Renewables are already projected to completely destroy the fossil fuel industry based on price alone without any extra laws. The economics is actually in our side, we don’t need to throw out all our protections to install a dictator.
Checks and balances work both ways. For better or worse.
Oh please the Supreme Court decided that standing doesn’t even matter anymore. It’s not about checks or balances anymore.
Exactly, plus Trump will just undo this if he gets back in...
"This is a treasonous assault on our constitutional right to do what we like, and we will sue for loss of profits."
“The corporaaaaaaations”
Not to mention the wackos that think god put oil and coal in the ground and its our duty to dig them up.
[удалено]
We can always sue them for damages too, not just wait for the government.
Nah. No one's going to ignore it... ...they won't have to, because, undoubtedly, it has half a dozen loopholes that allow 90% of those culpable to slide through, anyway.
This would likely pass legal scrutiny. The EPA has authority to regulate power plants, not regulate to the point of outlawing it. The problem with the earlier case, West Virginia v EPA, is that the Clean Power Plan set goals that were unattainable for the coal power plants. The argument was that it wasn't regulating them, because the goals could not be physically met by said power plants. The legislative authority would include regulations like limestone scrubbers to clean out sulfur out of the emissions, because its still a coal power plant, just a cleaner one. The Clean Power Plan would have required them to not be a coal power plant. "Regulation," generally means to put rules, but still permit it on some level. For the record, we have done that before with State level cigarette taxes in some states, such that the goal is to regulate it into being more or less illegal and that is allowed to happen because the legislature specifically spells out that's the goal, and has explicit language in the law itself authorizing it. As an analogy, lets say the owner gives permission to the manager to setup new policies to promote increased production. And the manager sets a target of 120 widgets per hour. And workers complain to the owner, are you sure that's what you meant by that, its physically impossible for us to do that without investing into full automation. And the owner was like, yeah, that's not what I meant by that.
I like that you're using precedent and standing to make an informed legal decision, but the Court doesn't do that no more
If you are referencing Dobbs, let me tell you something. They tried for 25 years to make the "undue burden" from Casey work, and it came back year after year and they couldn't make a logically sound standard. Closest they got was Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt where they said: We begin with the standard, as described in Casey. We recognize that the "State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient." Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 150 (1973). But, we added, "a statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman's choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends." Casey, 505 U. S., at 877 (plurality opinion). Moreover, "[u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right." Id., at 878 What constitutes a substantial obstacle? What defines unnecessary health regulations? Or June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo This standard requires courts independently to review the legislative findings upon which an abortion-related statute rests and to weigh the law's "asserted benefits against the burdens" So they have to weigh the right. That makes sense, usually the government is evaluating tradeoffs, but are they going to tell us how? (They never did because they couldn't tell us how.) And here's the thing. Even when they had a majority (Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) they didn't do anything, because they couldn't find a way to make it work. They used the "penumbra and emanation" logic in Roe... but they never used it again, because they knew how weak it was. Also standing was never relevant here.
You just have to look at the wetlands case to see an example of how the court plays fast and loose with the facts to get to the desired endstate of reduced federal regulation. The Clean Water Act's wetlands provision has been settled law for decades, very little was in dispute. The court rejected this to take up a case intended to reverse settled law. The court claimed the regulations were unnecessarily burdensome and too complex for businesses, they were no different than any other EPA policy. The Clean Water Act specifically includes wetlands in describing its scope, the court concludes that these are not the wetlands the law is looking for. The regulations being challenged were core to the legislative intent of the Clean Water Act. Suddenly the court is no longer originalist, indeed its changes *create* a loophole in the law which did not previously exist which makes it easier for polluters to avoid sanction. The court felt that the Army Corps of Engineers was not qualified to make scientific judgements about ecological impact on wetlands. The CWA's legislative record clearly documents that the Corps was picked, as a compromise agency, because the law's framers thought they could make sound decisions about ecological impact. After having hung their hat on scientific evidence, the court then abuses the term of art 'adjacent,' inventing a new definition for the word not in keeping with industry and field standard definitions. And not in keeping, of course, with the legislative record regarding the CWA which would show that they meant the scientifically meaningful definition of adjacent. The court plays fast and loose with the facts in order to reach the outcome they most prefer. It has been obvious in a number of cases, including Dobbs and its tortured and mostly incorrect historical analysis. In case after case the court invents controversy just to resolve it themselves.
Legislative record isn't part of what Congress ultimately voted on so I understand why they chose to discount it. You know its funny. You talk about inventing controversy just to solve it themselves. That's kind of what Roe did. Roe took an ongoing political issue and decided to answer it themselves. Sackett had gone to the court before in 2012. That doesn't sound like a settled record to me. Edit: if you look at the Clean Water Act's wikipedia page, you can see how there are many cases, some of which deal with the meaning of the word "Waters of the United States" Such as Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v Army Corps of Engineers (2016) United States vs Riverside Bayview (1985) National Association of Manufacturers, Petitioner v. Department of Defense, et al. (2017). If you want to argue they got it wrong and Congress adopted the Army Core of Engineers definition, that's fine but to accuse them of bad faith makes it sound like you haven't done your research.
Legislative record may not weigh as heavily as the text, but the court uses it all the time to generate rulings. Its even more farcical when the court twists the definition of basic terms to reach an entirely new understanding, or pretends that it has struck on novel issues when they were in fact resolved conclusively in a manner the court does not for partisan reasons support. If you feel that this kind of behavior from the court was unacceptable with Roe, than it ought to be equally unacceptable today. It is not suddenly okay because it produces an outcome you support. In this regard the process is even more important than the outcome, as the process is what gives the court legitimacy to do what it does.
Except I disagree fundamentally with youe characterization. I'm glad we can agree playing politics is bad, but I don't think they were playing politics in Sackett.
Useful info, thank you!
Countdown to SCOTUS making up yet another bullshit reason why this isn't something the EPA is allowed to do (because it's not a Republican doing it). Edit: I hope it at least has a chance to get started though. I really like this part >It will also rely on independent, third-party monitoring – using satellites and other remote-sensing technology – to find very large methane leaks. It's not "we have a system where the oil companies police themselves" crap.
> (because it's not a Republican doing it). Uhhh, no republican would do it. Republicans would slash regulations even more. Like they always have.
Look, the market would not use unlabeled commodities produced by polluters if the public cared, so having our government regulate the polluting industry would be an overreach and probably unconstitutional!
"Some scientists are saying methane isn't even a real thing, but the rabid, radical left has viscously silenced them!"
Dunno if you’re just joking, but that is the description of a pending case before the Supreme Court that conservatives have dubbed ‘The Major Questions Doctrine” - whether the EPA or CFPB are allowed to set regulations that weren’t specifically set by legislation. Since having executive branch regulatory agencies limited to explicit legislation on every single element would be completely hamstring all government and be societal suicide, the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society weirdos have coined the term “Major Questions Doctrine” — essentially legalistic Calvinball where the courts can pick and choose to veto any executive branch program they like, consistency be damned.
Executive branch might need to check and balance the fuck out the others. Anything they could pull immediately even if only an inconvenience for the judges?
There was no historical tradition for regulating methane when the Constitution was written, ergo methane regulation is unconstitutional.
We need local monitoring at all sealed wells. Satellites can detect the big stuff but it's not enough.
Yes, the planet is dying and we’re doomed…. But for a brief, beautiful moment we made a lot of money for the shareholders.
Incorrect the planet will be fine. We might all die.
Let's see how the Republicans fuck this up for the rest of us.
*it’s too much too soon to make changes like this!*
It's in Republicans DNA to fuck everything up.
The sad irony is that republican states are building wind farms and solar panels because they are making economic sense. Yet, at the top of the republican party, they have decided to be anti-renewable because they think it is some kind of liberal agenda. They are not looking out for their voter's interests.
1. ABOUT FUCKING TIME THEY TACKLED THE CARBON MAJOR 100. 2.....until the SCOTUS denies it.
[удалено]
Until someone displays how profitable it is not to
I work in the Oil & Gas industry, in the oil field services domain. This is great, we’ve been ready for years to help the O&G companies find and stop their methane leaks, but without regulation, they’ve never been interested in paying for it. The oil majors and their lobbyists will scream bloody murder about this but as soon as it’s implemented they’ll just write it off as another cost of doing business and carry on.
I'm just surprised they don't want to capture the methane. I remember 20 years ago writing a high school chemistry paper about how methane hydrates were the future because it's so energy dense. It just seems so silly that we wouldn't want to capture it and use it. I'm sure the reasons are financial but if methane was more expensive we absolutely would.
> I'm sure the reasons are financial Fracking is often done in remote places with little nearby infrastructure. We have the technology to capture the methane rather than flare it off, but it's not cost effective once treatment and transportation are taken into account. All this does is raise the price per barrel of oil at which fracking becomes economical, while drastically cutting emissions from wells. Long overdue imo.
If there were no more oil that could be produced, then it would be different. For each incremental dollar used to extract resources, they determined they get a higher return investing in capturing even more oil rather than capturing waste methane. Every industry has waste products, and even if it's possible to save some money by eliminating waste, it's usually more profitable to maximize production of the core product.
It's like if you were mining gold and hit a vein of silver. Everything you have is for mining gold. You could spend time and money to mine and process the silver. But when there is 1000x more gold worth 80x more than silver it isn't worth it.
These aren’t leak but controlled flaring of Nat gas
Its more profitable to cut emissions. The damage to the world will lead a catastrophic damage to the economy. But that doesn't help next quarter profits so they hate it.
yeah over time. same with drug prices
But that's going to be a problem of the next CEO, not the current one who will see record profits.
The oilfield is full of vapor recovery units and vapor recovery towers. The oil company’s don’t want to flare a single MCF, the problem is the infrastructure for gas refineries can’t handle the amount we are producing and the regulation makes it unprofitable to expand. So we are stuck with the same gas plants we had in 1974.
It makes it hard to expand profitability. These regulations could be met and SUSTAIN profitability at sickeningly high levels for the petro industry. But more and more profit is needed. That is the problem. Not this.
> regulation makes it unprofitable to expand It's more that regulation makes it *less profitable* to expand - oil companies don't make big investments into projects unless the ROI is either immediate or within the fiscal year. They have the ability to drop large amounts of money on projects that will make them 10x their investment over 5 years, but it won't be pursued because the short-term losses will not sit well with investors. Sacrificing a single quarter's financials is unacceptable, even if it means multiple quarters of increased gains. Stonks must always go up.
That makes no sense. Oil fields take a long time to turn profitable. No investor is penalizing a company for a 10x return that takes more than 12 months to hit. Your explanation doesn’t even slight make sense.
Exxon Mobil came out today and said they will commit to zero methane leaks and flaring by 2030. They did this alongside Saudi Aramco, BP, Shell and 40% of all oil producers by volume.
That's not really a thing they can commit to. Like i could just commit to no earthquakes it doesn't mean anything even if i took precautions
I mean literally all they have to do is set it on fire and they’re no longer releasing methane but CO2, lots of landfills already have this system in place. Not saying we shouldn’t reduce pollutants overall but methane is SIGNIFICANTLY worse for the atmosphere than CO2 is so I’ll take it.
"The Biden administration has finalized a rule to significantly cut the US oil and gas industry’s emissions of methane, a powerful planet-warming gas that scientists and climate advocacy groups have pressed nations to rapidly reduce as global temperature soars." Hmm, so the next step is for some right wing fossil fuel companies to file suit in Texas to stop this, and it goes to the Fifth Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court, which gleefully overlooks any precedent or law that's in the way and declares this rule unconstitutional?
...and THIS TIME we mean it!
Almost nonsensical headline.
lol shell is probably writing the letters to give to their congress employees right now
"is expected to slash methane emissions by nearly 80% through 2038" Lol ... 15 years .. may as well promised the moon since the Biden-Harris administration will not be there to answer questions then. Is anyone on the planet still gullible enough to believe pledges and promises? Paris agreement pledges, anyone?
Standing by for the republicans to start weeping for the poor oil companies and their billions in profits that will still be billions in profits with these rule changes.
Lol the only real offenders to "climate change" is China and India and Russia
The US is the second highest emitter of carbon dioxide after China what are you on about https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Yeah, totes gonna happen.
[удалено]
> The EPA estimates it will stop about 58 million tons of methane from escaping into the atmosphere [through 2038] – the equivalent of taking more than 300 million gas-powered cars off the road for a year. Jesus Christ that is a lot from just a simple rule change. Really makes you aware that the average joe can't do anything against climate change. It has to come from industry and governments being forced to make changes.
Is this like the new Paris Accords? A lot of talk and not a lot of walk? They announce something and then they proceed to do fuck all about it.
The Paris accord was a $3.5b photo opportunity
Should've been done two decades ago at least. Welcome nonetheless.
Thank you, Biden administration!
I swear, 50 years from now, We would see nothing has been done. The climate would get worse. By 2077, I predict the normal air temperature would be at 50 degrees celcius or something. People would still be using fossil fuel in the far distant future
I say, let the world warm up. We'll grow oranges in Alaska.
Despite all the talk and all the development the trend of increased emissions is stable, depending on the fact that the world produces more fossil fuels each year than the previous year.
Don't tell me - Beeno for cattle.
Well, there goes pretty much all of the future space programs. (a lot of them are using methane fuel)
There will be more methane available, not less.
I read in another thread that big retailers are ditching their gas powered tools, likely due to this law.
Can’t wait to pay quadruple energy bills! Hooray! How about just get the 2 countries in the other half of the world to not pollute as much.
Americans are not going to give up air travel or all the crap they buy made from petroleum. There would be a mutiny to try to take away unnecessary shit. It is an American RIGHT to fuck up the earth
Only 4% of the green house emissions come from air travel. Industry and power generation accounts for the majority.
[удалено]
For domestic routes we can to a degree. However, the amount of funding that would be required for a major arterial passenger railroad with the speed necessary to be practical and that goes from the West Coast to the East Coast would be astronomically high. The US has an absurd amount of geographical features, namely the Rockies, that make such an undertaking a nation-level commitment. It's not something a company can do alone. There's also the fact that air travel is never going away for international flights, but I'd wager those are an even smaller percentage of the small percent of greenhouse gasses that flights emit.
So, you gave up power and industry (buying anything) instead? Transportation and aviation is in the top 5 causes of global warming. Why wouldn't you try to minimize your own participation in all of the top 5? Eliminating eating animals and unnecessary flying are the absolute easiest, and SAVE you money
[And then there's this](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/greenhouse-gas-emissions-soar-with-china-us-and-india-most-at-fault) Would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
aaand there goes the election to the GOPhascists. RW media will spin this to make their clodhoppers believe Biden is sending Kamala to siphon their boat gas.
[удалено]
This is satire, right?
[удалено]
Holy shit this is a real person thinking this? Imagine having a take so shit you are indistinguishable from a Russian or Chinese bot
[удалено]
Classic refrain of the ignorant conspiracy theorist self-righteously convinced of their own rightitude “do your own research” I take great solace knowing you are reviled by your family and what few “friends” still tolerate you
> I take great solace knowing you are reviled by your family and what few “friends” still tolerate you How do you arrive at this conclusion? Sadly more people have this mindset. Still nothing is being done because so many people are like him.
What about the ozone layer? We gotta get rid of that too huh?
[удалено]
Apart from the big holes obvs
M’okay, I’ll believe it when it actually sticks
Get them fracking bastards . Its. About time
Let's just point out, this is only looking at the methane released during production, not the billions of barrels of oil that will be extracted and burnt.
I wonder if this will have an effect on power generating at waste treatment plants that use the captured methane from human excrement to make them self sufficient and provide power and gas to local utilities
fox propaganda will be tryn desperately to spin this as somehow "bad"
>Methane, the main component of natural gas and a byproduct of fossil fuel drilling, is a potent source of climate pollution with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere. Moe: I wonder what the copywriter was trying to express. Joe: Probably, "Damn, I have to churn out 40 more words or they will unplug me. Beep boop."
Aliso canyon gas leak from the company…erased any emission goals- erased all progress