Supreme court rules against the continuation of life on Earth

[GliderGuider]

So Long, and Thanks for All the Mercury-Filled Fish: SCOTUS Strikes Down EPA Regulations

In Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a 5-4 majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA’s proposed—and already widely enacted—regulations on toxic power plant emissions are invalid because of a failure to adequately consider the costs to industry that those regulations might incur. In this they validate the many lawsuits filed against the EPA by the coal industry and others since those standards were set.

[SoapBox]

1. Ya, I suppose there should have been calculations

for the cost of our deaths.

Just die quickly!

[kristopher]

12. This OP is hyperbolic bullshit - EPA Reg NOT Struck Down

What Everyone Is Getting Wrong About The Supreme Court’s Mercury Pollution Ruling
BY EMILY ATKIN POSTED ON JUNE 29, 201


Despite reports to the contrary in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and briefly this publication, the Supreme Court didn’t actually “strike down” the EPA’s regulations of toxic air pollution from power plants on Monday.

What the Supreme Court did do was put the regulation — which limits toxic heavy metal pollution like mercury from coal and oil-fired plants — in jeopardy. In a 5-4 decision led by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court said the EPA acted unlawfully when it failed to consider how much the regulation would cost the power industry before deciding to craft the rule.

However, that doesn’t mean the rule is gone. In fact, it’s still in place at this very moment. Right now, power plants are still required to limit their emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, and other toxins. A spokesperson for the EPA confirmed this to ThinkProgress.

What the Supreme Court’s ruling does is send the current mercury rule to the D.C. Circuit court for further consideration. The D.C. Circuit could very well invalidate the rule. But it could also uphold it, if the court finds more harm than good would be done by repealing it, or if the agency can offer a reasonable explanation of why costs weren’t included early on in the administrative record.

The D.C. Circuit has often left rules in place under similar circumstances...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/29/3675141/no-supreme-court-did-not-invalidate-mercury-rule/

Thanks GG. We can always depend on you to spread bad information.

[Thor_MN]

14. I supppose the power plants could clean up the mercury after it has blown across several states

They could annually scrub every square inch of country, lake bottoms. They would have to install and maintain cleanup devices on every river, stream, brook - that water would otherwise flow out of their cleanup area.

Or, they can clean it up at the source of the pollution.


There, we have considered the costs.

[kristopher]

15. I have no idea what that means - the OP is BS.

The EPA reg WAS NOT struck down. Reference was provided for details.

[Thor_MN]

16. Did you understand what you posted?

[kristopher]

17. Yes, and your remarks are not germane to the issue.

Again - a source explaining the decision was provided. Maybe you could minimize your comments until you internalize the actual situation.

[Thor_MN]

19. My remarks go to the very core of what you posted.

"In a 5-4 decision led by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court said the EPA acted unlawfully when it failed to consider how much the regulation would cost the power industry before deciding to craft the rule."

The costs were not written into the rule because the polluter would have to clean up the pollution one way or the other.


Are you actually trying to tell me to shut up while stamping your feet? I have a four year old niece that recently advanced beyond that stage.

[kristopher]

24. No, I'm telling you that you are supporting the dissemination of a lie....

...by continuing to pretend the OP has any validity. Obviously you finally read the reference I provided as you've now narrowed the scope of your remarks considerably. The decision remanded the case back to the lower court where it will be dealt with in a manner that supports the EPA'sactions.

[Thor_MN]

25. If I had meant to support the OP, I would have replied to it.

Obviously, your range is limited. I got what the decision was about without reading your cite.

I'm speaking about the stupidity of the decision, essentially that there is a price beyond which it makes sense to spray mercury, and other heavy metals, as well other toxic materials into the atmosphere.

When you catch up and think of a reply, you are going to have to wait for a response. I have to go to work. Did I mention that I am an environmental chemist?

[kristopher]

26. You would have replied to it OR you would have made in an inane remark...

...when the false premise behind the OP was pointed out. Your comment had/has absolutely nothing to do with the legal decision - which was the entire point of the OP and my first response. I refuse to believe you mistook anything I said as a defense of the decision or a defense of mercury emissions. That doesn't leave many interpretations of the purpose for your off-point remarks.

[Thor_MN]

27. Hey you managed to get something out before I stepped out the door.

Your mistake was in thinking I was saying you were wrong in your first post. You were not. The decision itself is about about money and is wrong. Your apparent defensive nature and desire not to read much led you to attempt to attack me.

Sorry that you don't get it.

[Scuba]

2. Corporations have more rights to profits than people do to living. Fuck Scalia and the other whores

[Enthusiast]

13. +1 a huge bunch!

[daleanime]

21. Hell yes.....

[Unknown Beatle]

3. Antonin (The Italian Scallion) Scalia strikes again.

Fuck him! This piece of shit needs to quit. He's unfit to serve in the SC.

[unblock]

4. i think i've seen this case cited as an example of scalia "legislating from the bench"

[Cryptoad]

5. Dont need no stinking clean air and water!

[timdog44]

7. Thats right, we don't need anyone alive as long

as long we can make money. SCALIA Stupid Casts A Lie In America, again

[WinkyDink]

9. It's why the 1% is feverishly trying for more $$---they think they will live on Mars. NOT KIDDING.

[timdog44]

22. Id be

willing to contribute for their trip as long as they go today.

[Duppers]

6. +100 for thread title

[WinkyDink]

8. The "costs to industry" "argument" always makes me wish bad things upon the offspring of the

proponents.

#sorrynotsorry

[raouldukelives]

10. Costs. Oh, what a laugh.

I have yet to see the actuarial tables that outline what the cost of replacing, say, semi-predictable growing seasons would be. Or perhaps, the cost of replacing the Pacific Ocean.

Best representation Wall St investors can pay for. Wish they honestly cared about anything besides themselves. We might actually have a fighting chance.

[gregcrawford]

11. Do we really need any more proof...

... of the absolute corruption and moral depravity of the Supreme Court majority? "...the cost to fucking industry?" Are you kidding me?!!?

The magnitude of their evil can only be calculated in astronomical terms.

[daleanime]

18. ........

[Javaman]

20. " failure to adequately consider the costs to industry"

yes, those poor poor polluting corporations. we must all feel soooooo sorry for them.

[COLGATE4]

28. No, but you should feel sorry for ourselves.

Companies which generate electricity have their rates governed by some type of a State Board, usually called something along the lines of the 'X' Public Service Commission or some such. If their costs are increased due to a governmental mandate they are permitted to raise their rates to the public. So considering the 'costs to industry' generally means considering the costs to all the ratepayers.

[Thespian2]

23. The good thing is

once Obama and the Republicans get TPP and TTIP passed, the Supreme Court will no longer be needed. The corporations can decide all cases that pertain to...well, almost everything...

[d_legendary1]

29. Costs to industry? WTF does that even mean?

When I get a speeding ticket and it happens to be $200 or so does that mean I can sue the city for failure to adequately consider the costs to my well being that those regulations might incur?

Oh wait.

It only applies to corporations. Silly me!