Democrats did something that is popular and makes the world better.
It is hidden away in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The Supreme Court took away the EPA's power to regulate emissions from power plants. With two little words, the Inflation Reduction Act, gave back the power.
Today I continue my examination of the Inflation Reduction Act. The law is complicated and has multiple parts. Unless it is unpacked and explained its critics will dominate the public discussion. Yesterday I looked at reducing tax cheating by people with big incomes and complicated returns. Today I look at climate. The new law is widely described as the most significant climate legislation to date. The law includes $370 billion in incentives for green energy, including solar panels, wind turbines, hydrogen, electric vehicles, and carbon capture. Those parts of the law may get noticed because there is money available for doing certain things.
Less visible, but very important, is the addition of two words in the bill. They re-establish the power of the EPA to carry out one of its most important roles: Control of greenhouse gas emissions. In a decision that some Court-watchers consider even more consequential than its decision to reverse Roe v. Wade, this summer the Supreme Court announced a decision in West Virginia v. EPA. It involved what may seem like a small technical point regarding the specificity required in federal lawmaking. In West Virginia v. EPA the Court ruled that Congress was giving too much latitude to government agencies to make the specific rules on how to carry out Congress' will and policy. This was a separation-of-powers issue. The Supreme Court said the Environmental Protection Agency's rule-making went beyond the denoted purpose stated by Congress to stop pollution. Excessive carbon dioxide is damaging the planet, but it is natural, and not necessarily a "pollutant." Therefore, the EPA lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants.
Fossil fuel state senators considered it a "win." The presumption was that Congress--subject to heavy lobbying from the fossil fuel industry--would be unlikely to pass the necessary legislation. There was a new status quo.
But Congress did act, with two words inserted into the Inflation Reduction Act. The law described carbon dioxide to be an "air pollutant." Delaware Democratic senator Tom Carper said, “The language, we think, makes pretty clear that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”
Senator Ted Cruz understood the consequence of the two words. “It’s buried in there. The Democrats are trying to overturn the Supreme Court’s West Virginia vs. E.P.A. victory.” That is correct. His comment reveals the new state of play between the Supreme Court and the Congress. The Supreme Court is a policy branch. It's decision was a victory for de-regulation of fossil fuel emissions. But, against expectations, Congress did exactly what the Supreme Court said it must do. It got specific.
This will play out slowly and there will be new opportunities for litigation and setbacks, but the status quo on regulations of greenhouse gases moved back to the pre-West Virginia v. EPA era.
That is in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.
7 comments:
Thank you, Peter for bringing out a point I had not heard mentioned since I don't have A/C in my big trailer right now, thus no streaming capabilities.
I trust that Big Oil and Coal have battalions of shelter lawyers trying to figure out a workaround, so they can continue their polluting ways unhindered.
I can accept that petroleum fuels are going to be a necessity in our lives, probably beyond my lifetime, but why, for the love of mankind is there so much resistance from so many fronts, to at least trying to make things better, to at least fund the research facilities looking for a practical nuclear fusion capability, lr solar energy plants that don't require hundreds if not thousands of acres of fragile desert or grassy plains. I simply don't understand
Humanities desire to kill itself.
Over 40 years ago, Al Gore was raising the alarm about climate change, trying to convince us that it’s an existential threat. Republicans scoffed, sneered and snorted in derision. Their cult leader is still calls it a hoax (like the election results). They don’t want to address the issue because having to sacrifice for future generations might cost them something. Ironically, the damage to property and lives caused by climate change has already cost us more than it would have to mitigate it, including the destruction of Phoenix and Talent. The unfortunately named Inflation Reduction Act deserves our undying gratitude for finally taking the issue seriously.
Incredibly, many misguided Republicans still shrug it off and consider the awareness of our racist past and its obvious ongoing influence to be a greater threat. They think being “woke” (aware of social injustice) is racist and teaching black history (which they derogatorily mislabel “CRT”) should be banned. Meanwhile, what they call a “hoax” continues to drown what it doesn’t burn.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The thing is, EPA regulation is not going to help. China is building a new coal powered electrical generation plant every week. The developing world is not going to forgo cheap energy. Anything the EPA can do will amount to to rearranging the deck chairs.
If climate change is the immediate menace that advocates claim it is, we ought to be taking immediate emergency measures. We could be doing ocean fertilization to pull mass quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere. We could start doing that in a matter of months. We could be fast tracking production of new nuclear energy technologies like the modular reactors from Oregon’s NuScale.
But nothing like that is being proposed by the advocates. Instead, there’s a lot of virtue signaling about things like wind and solar, which look good but which won’t solve the problem. Lots of electric cars coming, supposedly. Where is the power for them supposed to come from?
Hooray!! not only the IRS, but the EPA are now branches of the military.
Be careful what you wish for Peter
https://youtu.be/aF9LP-9uG_k
Whatever our energy sources are going forward one thing is pretty certain. It's going to cost more. For most folks this will mean conservation. Any household can reduce energy use to some degree, and in fact those are are doing so now will be ahead.
There is urgency, but it will take more people feeling a direct impact - hard to believe - before it's addressed.
Maybe only 1 car per household...maybe more insulation...more pubic transit...maybe less recreational energy use, and so on.
Funding alternate energy sources will both provide a solution for our society, and also help those countries that will be soon choking thousands of their citizens to death and destroying their economies with pollution from dirty power generation.
In the 70s with the price shock from the oil embargo and the rise of the oil cartel OPEC, Jimmy Carter attempted to reduce and eliminate our dependance on foreign oil. Coal and natural gas were the short term bridges to perhaps nuclear and renewable power generation. It was clear no immediate solutions could supply the amount of energy needed to power the US. WIN buttons turned upside down looked like NIM and the catch phrase No Immediate Miracle followed Cater as ineffective. The rising cost of everything and word from the White House was do less, drive slower, wear a sweater etc., messed with the notion that America was immune from overseas forces. Carter lost reelection and moves to add alternative to the mix were resisted. Reagan dismantled the solar panels Carter had installed on the White House and K Street fossil fuel lobbyists wrote the new rules.
Into the breech came the lobbyists and fossil fuel industry to feed the news that if the government would just open up Federal lands for oil drilling and exploration we would have more oil and gas and no need to import and no need to turn to alternatives like wind and solar. Congress failed to pass a national fuel tax hike to $0.50/gallon. Revenues would be dedicated to energy conservation and energy alternatives. Lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry continue to point to other sources of greenhouse gases like volcanic activity and cow burps. The subtext is we aren't the problem they are!
Forty-plus years later the situation is more dire. Fossil fuels are a major contributor to climate change. The damage caused by increasing global temperatures are intensifying normal weather events, causing greater and greater property damage and loss of life.
The holders of coal, natural gas and oil leases see their holdings becoming stranded assets. In spite of record profits I expect an odious demand for compensation from the industry. The attack on basic science behind the climate research spilled over into skepticism of science in general politicalized our view of the experts in scientific fields like medicine, weather, agriculture to name a few. The half-truths and lies continue to cloud and obscure the issue.
The two words in the bill say carbon dioxide is an air pollutant! The IRA gives the EPA the authority to regulate air pollutants. And let's remember the saying "It is an ill wind that blows no good." as it was Richard Nixon that gave us the EPA. For that Dick, I say "Thank you!".
I believe it was Reagan who described nuclear energy as safe, clean, too cheap to meter!” Anybody who supports nuclear must not have witnessed how disastrous it is. Safe? Clean? Too cheap to meter? My ass. And I’m tired of hearing, “oh, THIS TIME” it's foolproof. Yeah. Just like all the other failures.
I love electric cars, and fully believe we an switch away from ICE vehicles in the near future, unless the Republicans shoot down all our efforts.
Where we have an even better alternative, I know I won’t live long enough to see. Maybe younger folks can make it happen. Namely, “PRT”, or Personal Rapid Transit. I don’t know if it will ever catch on for long distance travel, but for cities it’s the cat's meow. No waiting for a bus or cab. No stop signs or traffic lights. No accidents. No interactions with pedestrians nor animals. And NO STOPS between beginning and end of your crosstown trips. None! And eliminate all congestion!
Interested? Google it. I’m not jivin' you. This concept, and a few prototypes, have been around for almost half a century. I suspect the powers that be are concerned about profits, in some way, or we’d be focusing on this amazing program.
Post a Comment