Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-a-walk-in-the-park dept.

In a major setback for President Obama and for people who like to breathe, the court (in a 5-4 decision split along party lines) struck down a set of recent EPA regulations aimed at limiting pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Quoth the Guardian:

The justices embraced the arguments from the industry and 21 Republican-led states that the EPA rules were prohibitively expensive and amounted to government overreach.

The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that the EPA did not reasonably consider the cost factor when drafting regulation.

The Clean Air Act had directed the EPA to create regulations for power plants that were "appropriate and necessary". The agency did not consider cost when making its decision, the court ruled, but estimated that the cost of its regulation to power plants would be $9.6bn a year.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:13AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:13AM (#203195) Journal

    We can't afford to live better, it's too expensive.

    Next in the line (already started): we can't afford to live as well as until today, it's too expensive
    What's after: we can't all afford to live, let's start a war???

    Says who? Well...

    the industry and 21 Republican-led states

    Laugh at pollution in China no more: they do have a speck of dust in their eye, but US has a whole industry to make dust legit through law making, judiciary and executive.

    ---

    (please fix the un-closed <small> tag)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:30AM (#203198)

      Only the US considers property and money more important than life. Whether it's letting people kill others to defend property or letting major corporations pollute rather than pay to be clean, in America life is worth little. Sorta like slavery... Good thing you all have guns.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by penguinoid on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:19AM

        by penguinoid (5331) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:19AM (#203214)

        Only the US considers property and money more important than life.

        Every single country ever, and almost every individual, considers substantial amounts of property and money more important than life. For example, countries (and soldiers) fight wars. Even more so, people allow people in other countries to die from curable diseases or unsanitary water, and almost no one donates all but what they absolutely need to survive to prevent those deaths. Don't kid yourself -- most people value material goods over lives almost every second of every day, except when they have a personal connection to the life at stake.

        --
        RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:30AM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:30AM (#203219) Journal

        Only the US considers property and money more important than life. Whether it's letting people kill others to defend property or letting major corporations pollute rather than pay to be clean, in America life is worth little. Sorta like slavery... Good thing you all have guns.

        Oh climb down before you hurt yourself.

        Germany is burning some of the dirtiest coal in the world. Not a word out of you about that?

        The EPA rule took effect for some plants in April and was due to go into full effect by next year. In the meantime, the rule remains in effect, lawyers working on the case told Reuters. The ruling only concerns the cost consideration, so the EPA may try to write the rule again with cost in mind.

        So tempest in a tea pot. All that rant for nothing. A whole teaspoon of bile down the drain for nothing!

        When setting the time frames, the EPA did not even allow for the manufacturing time for the equipment, they just supposed it into existence, which of course could not possibly be met regardless of the price. The EPA will go back, allow for cost of rushing production, delay things a year or two, and it will all get done.

        In the meantime, the US regulations are the STRICTEST in the world [dw.com]. When they get implemented here, Germany and China will have to run hard just to catch up.

        Compare to the Chinese standard (0.03 mg/m3) - Also the standard in all of the EU, including Germany:
        1) U.S. standard, as it applies to a Bituminous coal plant: 0.0017 mg/m3
        2) U.S. standard, as it applies to a Lignite coal plant: 0.0153 mg/m3

        Our Lignite standard is HALF the Chinese/EU standard for ALL plants. Even their Bituminous plants are worse than our Lignite plants!!!
        The Chinese/EU standards for Mercury is 17 times the US standard for Bituminous.

        So while the EPA rewrites the cost alliances, (tax write offs, additional time to comply, what ever) the plants currently having scrubbers installed will be going ahead, under the regulations that will remain in effect. While the rest of the world continues to pollute at alarming rates.

        Maybe next time do just a TINY bit of research before you start your hate spew!

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:49AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:49AM (#203227)

          So, your argument can be broken up into two parts:

          1) But others do it, too!

          So? This isn't about them.

          Now that we've dispensed with that completely irrelevant crap, let's get on to:

          2) They can try again.

          And the courts will be used again, and again, until the interests have watered down the rules so far that they're basically a waste of time.

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:23AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @10:23AM (#203261)

            Your argument started with "only the US...", so it does matter what other countries do because it both makes your argument wrong and you an idiot.

            • (Score: 2) by penguinoid on Wednesday July 01 2015, @04:20AM

              by penguinoid (5331) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @04:20AM (#203621)

              Your argument started with "only the US...", so it does matter what other countries do because it both makes your argument wrong and you an idiot.

              Only the US shares borders with both Canada and Mexico. Only the US has this many prisoners. Only the US spends this much total money on its military. Only the US has the biggest GDP of any country. Only the US has sent a man to walk on the moon.

              --
              RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
          • (Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:17PM

            by Adamsjas (4507) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:17PM (#203348)

            If you re-read it, you will see his argument is exactly only part. The US regulations are already the tightest in the world for HG from coal plants, and they are being met.

            The rules aren't being watered down, in fact there is no indication of any change at all yet, other than that the EPA must take cost into compliance. The rules still stand. The court case ruled only about costs, and deadlines when fines kick in.

            You think industry protests and chalenges are different than any place else?
            Maybe look here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/14/german-backlash-grows-against-coal-power-clampdown [theguardian.com]

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:46PM (#203282)

          I don't always see eye to eye with your comments but this was one hell of a good one. Thanks for breaking it down and making me feel that this wasn't going to release an onslaught of stupid laws.

        • (Score: 2) by fliptop on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:16PM

          by fliptop (1666) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:16PM (#203347) Journal

          When setting the time frames, the EPA did not even allow for the manufacturing time for the equipment, they just supposed it into existence, which of course could not possibly be met regardless of the price

          This. One of the local power plants already has been shut down [theintelligencer.net] to comply w/ the EPA rules because they couldn't afford to retrofit and meet the new standards.

          "No one cares more about the air we breathe and the water we drink than the people who live here in along the Ohio River. However, there must be a balance between health regulation and excessive costs that would have a chilling impact on coal jobs and the cost of electricity in eastern and southeastern Ohio," [said Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio].

          --
          Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:34PM (#203385)

            "No one cares more about the air we breathe and the water we drink than the people who live here in along the Ohio River. However, there must be a balance between health regulation and excessive costs that would have a chilling impact on coal jobs and the cost of electricity in eastern and southeastern Ohio," [said Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio].

            Its too expensive to properly dispose of this nuclear waste, therefore we'll just dump it into the river. After all, if its deemed "too expensive" by our company, that means we can just ignore it! Horray for precedents set after regulatory capture and bought representatives!

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:43PM

            by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:43PM (#203460)

            energy industry crying 'oh, poor me!' ?

            really?

            REALLY?

            we're too poor to afford to make clean energy.

            yeah, I TOTALLY believe them. they can just barely keep their families fed, those poor babies. lets give them a pass and help those low-income CEO's afford to clean the air and water. its only our ONLY AIR AND WATER, what harm could there be on a little pollution between friends?

            --
            "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:03PM (#203404)

        Only the US considers property and money more important than life.

        Probably posted from an iPhone.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:02PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:02PM (#203469) Journal

      We can't afford to live better, it's too expensive.

      There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want a better world, you need to work for it, not merely regulate it into existence.

      And the arguments for continuing such a regulation suffer from the usual ignorance:

      Earthjustice said that the rules now invalidated by the court’s decision would have saved “between 4,000 and 11,000 lives each year by substantially reducing pollution from the dirtiest plants”

      Even if that were true, you still have lives saved by generation of that power too. A huge part of the problem is only considering one side of the equation. The US has other priorities than just minimizing mercury emissions.

      Laugh at pollution in China no more: they do have a speck of dust in their eye, but US has a whole industry to make dust legit through law making, judiciary and executive.

      Just because you can't get one onerous and excessive bit of regulation through, suddenly the US is as bad as China? Looking through this 2013 report [unep.org], it appears that the US is responsible for about 2% of world air emissions of mercury while China is responsible for 30%. China is only about four times larger in population, so that's a considerably higher per capita emissions of mercury.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by PocketSizeSUn on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:44AM

    by PocketSizeSUn (5340) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:44AM (#203201)

    Not sure what the plan is here, but I'm pretty sure the inmates are running the asylum. Again.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:58AM (#203208)

      Not sure what the plan is here

      No plan, the inmates are too innate defective.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:37PM (#203388)

        No, there's a plan alright - "Profit as much as possible, no matter the cost to everyone who isn't us"

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:23AM (#203216)

      Exactly! A second very stupid SCOTUS decision on SN front page today... fucking imbeciles...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:48AM (#203203)

    The text after the article is a bit smaller both on the front page and on the comments.

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by RedBear on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:14AM

    by RedBear (1734) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:14AM (#203211)

    It's almost like after upholding the Affordable Care Act and striking down discrimination against same-sex marriage they feel like they need to make several really dumb decisions to compensate.

    It's sure going to be expensive to build hermetically sealed underground chambers for the human race to live in for the next ten thousand years. But at least we won't be putting any excessive burden on the coal power plants.

    Luckily renewables are becoming so cost-competetive that even the companies that own the coal-fired power plants are starting to voluntarily invest in solar and wind farms and divest themselves of coal investments. Coal will still die. Eventually.

    --
    ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
    ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:24AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:24AM (#203217) Journal

      Coal will still die. Eventually.

      A tiny detail: before or after us?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by jmorris on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:38AM

      by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:38AM (#203245)

      Not exactly. But just like those decisions last week it is another case of the Court making law with only the most tenuous connection to their original function of traditional 'judging' cases based on obsolete concepts like the Constitution and what laws actually say.

      Congress needs to look around and see if they can find where they misplaced their testes and start just overrulling the SCOTUS when they misrule. Simple bills saying "We find this ruling an infringement on our exclusive power to Legislate and therefore declare it a nullity." Granted they couldn't override the really horrid ones from last week while Obama rules and this Congress wouldn't object to this speedbump for EPA but whenever Congress and the White House disagree with the Court they should start checking and balancing them. Just demonstrating it CAN be done would do wonders to stop the worst abuses of power. The realization there would BE a vote to overturn/ratify their more 'creative' rulings would bring home the fact the Court is now merely another political branch; since they appear to worry a fair amount that normal 'low info' voters might realize that and lose faith in their rulings it might cause them to slow it down.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:44PM (#203394)

        Congress needs to look around and see if they can find where they misplaced their testes and start just overrulling the SCOTUS when they misrule.

        Wouldn't that just be the greatest day ever, if congress overturned Obergefell v. Hodges [wikipedia.org], United States v. Windsor [wikipedia.org], Roe v. Wade [wikipedia.org], and Brown v. Board of Education [wikipedia.org]!

        It may not even be necessary to overturn them though, already presidential candidates [hotair.com] and several states [breitbart.com] are saying they don't give a fuck what SCOTUS ruled, they don't have to follow it! Oh joyous progress!

    • (Score: 2) by RedBear on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:27AM

      by RedBear (1734) on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:27AM (#203649)

      Holy What the Flying F**kity F**k. Flamebait? Really?

      I get the feeling maybe those who moderated my post above as Troll and Flamebait did not grasp that I was referring to this as being a very bad decision based on my usage of half the common phrase "One step forward... TWO STEPS BACK".

      This is why it's better to reply than to downmod, because I end up really having not the slightest clue why my post was marked either Flamebait or Troll. What was flamebaity about the parent post? What was trolly about it? I merely pointed out that the court was just deferring costs into the future and that coal will soon be cost-ineffective, thankfully, no matter how they try to keep it alive.

      Guess I better spell out my position more clearly next time. For those with poor reading comprehension. There, you can mark this post Flamebait too.

      --
      ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
      ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:43AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:43AM (#203222)

    They're not really ruling that this is too expensive, they're simply saying that this is too expensive for business. It's not too expensive for individuals (or their insurers) to pay for the health consequences for the actions of others making the money.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:07AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:07AM (#203233)

      Profits are private, costs are socialized. Welcome to crony capitalism!

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:01PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:01PM (#203336)

        > costs are socialized

        Actually, we need to repeal Obamacare to allow Private Insurers to deny lung-disease claims.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:32PM (#203325)

    in other news syphilis won't be rising:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28element%29#Historic_uses [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:46PM

    by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:46PM (#203365)

    dealing a blow to the Obama administration’s efforts to set limits on the amount of mercury, arsenic and other toxins coal-fired power plants can spew into the air, lakes and rivers.

    Well that's not good - we need stricter limits on mercury and arsenic and other toxins to ensure these things do not pollute our environment. Maybe Congress can act to reinstate the rule? EPA said up to 20% of plants had already made the changes to meet the standard. That's a good thing.

    The 5-4 decision was a major setback to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and could leave the agency more vulnerable to legal challenges to its other new carbon pollution rules

    Well that's a good thing. The EPA is overreaching on carbon "pollution" (not) standards, and attempts to regulate every drop of water in and around the country. The water regulation rules are especially egregious, as compliance for farmers means more corporate farms using more chemicals, and less small and organic farms that can't afford the overhead for the ridiculous farmland development that the EPA and state environmental agencies are requiring to meet the water regulations.

    --
    I am a crackpot
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:20PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:20PM (#203479) Journal

      Well that's not good - we need stricter limits on mercury and arsenic and other toxins to ensure these things do not pollute our environment.

      You will need to remove mercury from the environment as well to achieve this fabled non-polluting state. From my reading of this 2013 report [unep.org], natural (non-anthropogenic) global sources emit somewhere around 600 tons of mercury into the environment each year, while the US does somewhere around 40 tons per year by the metric of the report (assuming two thirds of North America total of 60 tons per year). The total human generated sources are about 2000 tons per year. So even if we completely eliminated anthropogenic mercury from the environment, we've reduce mercury emissions from current sources (as oppose to reemissions from past sources) from roughly 2600 tons per year to 600 tons per year. That's a bit over a factor of four reduction in mercury emissions possible, which doesn't strike me as that much to gain.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by dingus on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:46PM

    by dingus (5224) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:46PM (#203396)

    The supreme court said that the EPA is perfectly within bounds when regulating pollution, and they'll probably go ahead with the regulations anyway. The thing is that from now on they have to make a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed regulations *before* they are put into effect, unlike previously when they'd make a cost-benefit analysis afterwards.