Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS shoots down EPA mercury rule!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Crash View Post
    [/INDENT]
    On the death penalty drugs they ruled it's ok for criminals to die a slow and painful death.


    In this case they ruled it's ok for everyone to die a slow and painful death.
    As opposed to freezing to death in the dark.

    Leave a comment:


  • Crash
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Supreme Court deals blow to Obama's green agenda

    On the death penalty drugs they ruled it's ok for criminals to die a slow and painful death.


    In this case they ruled it's ok for everyone to die a slow and painful death.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    The primary regulatory problem is that Congress has effectively created a self-empowering fourth branch of government over the past ~80 years. The latest SCOTUS decision on the EPA's Cross.State Air Pollution rule makes it very clear that only Congress can fix this problem. Regulatory agencies, like the EPA, have become unaccountable to any power other than the President. The Federal bureaucracy can often wield as much power as POTUS desires. This is antithetical to the form of government created by our Constitution.

    Facing a Hobson's Choice?

    The Constitutionality of the EPA's Administrative Compliance Order Enforcement Scheme


    Christopher M. Wynn, Candidate for J.D., Washington and Lee University School of Law, May 2006

    […]

    Under the Clean Air Act the EPA's administrative compliance orders (ACOs) are important enforcement tools used to enforce the Clean Air Act (CAA) and other environmental statutes. 1 It is clear why these informal agency actions have become the EPA's most commonly used enforcement device? ACOs may be issued with relatively little administrative process and do not require the EPA to go to court.3 An ACO serves to provide a regulated entity with notice that the EPA regards it as in violation of statutory or regulatory requirements, and it often requires the party to take or refrain from taking a particular action in order to comply with the applicable law.4 If the regulated party does not comply, the EPA may pursue judicial enforcement or administratively assess penalties. 5 Because disobeying an ACO is itself a separate violation of law over and above noncompliance with a particular provision of the Act, ACOs provide the agency with a powerful enforcement mechanism that requires a relatively modest expenditure of scarce agency resources.6 Moreover, until recently, the EPA could issue ACOs without triggering a right to pre-enforcement judicial review because courts had not viewed the orders as "final agency action."7 This gave the EPA added leverage to press regulated parties into compliance with the terms of the ACO, while retaining the discretion whether and when to seek enforcement.8From the regulated entity's perspective, however, being on the receiving end of an ACO can present a painful "Hobson's choice."9 The entity may disregard the order and risk accrual of civil and criminal penalties for either the underlying violation of the law or for violating the terms of an ACO.10 On the other hand, a party can comply with the ACO, often at enormous cost, and potentially forfeit the right to obtain judicial review of the factual or legal accuracy of the EPA's position. 11

    […]

    In order to understand the purpose of the ACO in its current incarnation, it will be useful to summarize the evolution of the CAA enforcement scheme. The CAA has undergone three major overhauls in its thirty-five year history with the most recent and comprehensive revisions coming in 1990.75

    […]

    75. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No.1 01-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990); see Michael R. Barr, Introduction to the Clean Air Act: History, Perspective, and Direction for the Future, in THE CLEAN AIR ACT HANDBOOK 1, 2 (Robert J. Martineau, Jr. & David P. Novello eds., 2d ed. 2004) (noting that the major overhauls of the CAA were the an1endments of 1970, 1977, and 1990). The 1970 Amendments established a major federal regulatory role in air regulation for the first time. Id. at 5. The 1977 Amendments doubled the size of the CAA, and the 1990 Amendments doubled it again including exponential growth of the EPA's regulations. Id. at 2.

    http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/62-4Wynn.pdf

    Most pollutants are already at or near irreducible levels and almost all are well below the national standard; yet the EPA continues to ratchet down the standards, exponentially increasing compliance costs.

    NO2 and SO2 were already well below the national standard and declining *before * Maobama sent the EPA on an Enviromarxist jihad against American industry...



    SO2 was at, or very near, an irreducible level before Maobama's jihad against industry...



    PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) was already below the national standard and falling before Maobama's war on productivity...



    PM10 (coarse particulate matter) was way below the national standard and falling before Maobama's dictatorship of the proletariat ...





    The EPA says, "The annual standard for PM2.5 is met whenever the 3 year average of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations for designated monitoring sites in an area is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3." The particulate matter pollution problem is not in the United States...

    Ozone (O3) pollution has also been declining for 30 years...



    Note that the National Standard for surface level ozone (O3) is ~0.07 parts per million. Ozone isn't a problem until it gets above 0.2 ppm...

    0.200 ppm
    Prolonged exposure of humans under occupational and experimental conditions produced no apparent ill effects. The threshold level at which nasal and throat irritation will result appears to be about 0.300 ppm.

    0.300 ppm
    The ozone level at which some sensitive species of plant life began to show signs of ozone effects.

    0.500 ppm
    The ozone level at which Los Angeles, California, declares its Smog Alert No. 1. Can cause nausea in some individuals. Extended exposure could cause lung edema (an abnormal accumulation of serous fluid in connective tissue or serous cavity). Enhances the susceptibility to respiratory infections.

    http://www.understandingozone.com/limits.asp


    Lead (Pb) is generally considered to be one of the most toxic pollutants. Lead pollution dates back at least to Roman times. It appears that lead pollution peaked in the mid-20th century and have been dropping like a lead weight since the 1960's, totally ignoring the population "explosion" and the EPA (which did not commence its mischief until 1970). Lead levels are currently about where they were before the industrial revolution.







    Annual compliance costs are in millions of 2006 dollars.

    Pollution abatement follows a production (AKA diminishing returns) function. Each dollar spent removes less pollution than the previous dollar. The cost of compliance with the Clean Air Act is rising exponentially while the return in pollution abatement is asymptotically approaching zero...



    [/URL]

    The gov't routinely exaggerates the supposed benefits of regulations, usually relying on unverifiable claims, such as, "Regulation X prevented 1,500 premature deaths." There is no way to test or verify a claim that things would have been worse if gov't didn't impose these real costs on your business. And the costs are very real.

    The EPA routinely uses asthma as a justification for new reg's. They claim the reg's will reduce the incidence of asthma. The EPA's own data show that atmospheric concentrations of SO2 and NO2 have been declining, while the CDC says that asthma diagnoses have been increasing over the last few decades.



    If the pollution abatement was reducing the incidence of asthma, why is the percentage of children being diagnozed with asthma risng?

    At times, the EPA will resort to totally [email protected] metrics like the “Social Cost of Carbon” when they can’t gin up any speculative health “benefits.”

    In this particular case, SCOTUS ruled that the EPA failed to properly weigh the costs of the new rule against the benefits.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Well, the bastards got one thing right, at least.
    Now they're half-as-right as a broken analog clock...

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The only difference in a private business is you have to be successful. That is, you have to make a profit. In government you don't. You can fail miserably and continue to fail indefinitely even and still be funded.

    Therefore the restraint on private business is the profit motive. Government has no such restraint. Not enough money? Borrow, print, or tax more.

    As of late with the EPA and some other government agencies there has been an influx of what you might call "True Believers." There are many bureaucrats that believe ardently in Gorebal Warming or some other environmental issue like that. These people are dangerous on two levels. Not only are they bureaucrats, but they believe religiously in a cause for which they will do whatever it takes to complete. They are on a crusade to save us from ourselves.
    That bunch is insanely dangerous because they have no objectivity.
    Again you are absolutely right but many people in private business have no moral compass making the profit motive a licence for exploitation.

    That government employees exploit their positions to promote what I would agree is an almost religious zeal for personal ideologies is undeniable. It is equally true however that a free market system that operates without a moral code is likely to not be in the objective interests of the society it functions in.

    Many people fail to realize that morality is objectively justifiable as a necessary part of any social organization. I would argue that it is the immorality of imposing their will on others that make the fanatical bureaucrats dangerous more so than their lack of objectivity. The same could be said about those who exploit the markets. In the end though immorality is never objectively justifiable but requires a subjective perspective.

    In the case of the bureaucrats they are simply misinformed about the nature of morality. Imposed morality is a contradiction in terms as moral agency is sacrificed to force. Societies are fundamentally cooperative enterprises and require compromise. Moral agency however is a property of individuals not organizations and it is the character of the individuals that make up an organization that determines if it is moral or otherwise.

    In the case of the EPA they have a mandate to protect the environment but have arbitrarily decided that stockholders and managers are not part of the society they are protecting. In a similar manner stockholders and managers subvert the social mandate of the EPA by labeling bureaucrats as not included in those to which they have a social contract. Not until both parties see the other as moral agents to whom they have a responsibility can the issues be resolved.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Everything you say is true but it applies universally.

    If you are a CEO all you care about is what financial package you get and your golden parachute. The same attitude even applies to medium size businesses. I have seem many businesses ran by people who are surprisingly disinterested in growing the business they have and direct most of their energy to outside investments. The last company my wife worked for the owner acquired the business by marriage gutted it and took the money.

    The what's in it for me mentality is prevalent and few people really care about doing a good job and it's not just a problem in government.

    If you say the free market weeds out the problem of indifferent owners it's not been my observation. I think Enron is an excellent example of how you can manipulate markets, make huge profits, and provide little or no real services if you are sufficiently indifferent to the future of the industry you are involved in. All you really have to know is when to get out and move on to the next opportunity to be successful. What makes the system work at all is that reputation is still important to some degree.

    Of course you can't paint all businesses, government agencies or managers with the same brush. Just as laws are meaningless if the people that enforce them are corrupt ultimately you have to rely on character or what they call moral fiber in any human enterprise. Most people including bureaucrats have some conscience and that is what keeps us bobbing along.
    The only difference in a private business is you have to be successful. That is, you have to make a profit. In government you don't. You can fail miserably and continue to fail indefinitely even and still be funded.

    Therefore the restraint on private business is the profit motive. Government has no such restraint. Not enough money? Borrow, print, or tax more.

    As of late with the EPA and some other government agencies there has been an influx of what you might call "True Believers." There are many bureaucrats that believe ardently in Gorebal Warming or some other environmental issue like that. These people are dangerous on two levels. Not only are they bureaucrats, but they believe religiously in a cause for which they will do whatever it takes to complete. They are on a crusade to save us from ourselves.
    That bunch is insanely dangerous because they have no objectivity.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Where the EPA is a fail is that they have lost sight of their mandate just as any advocacy agency will eventually. It plays like this:

    * In any bureaucracy the number one purpose of it is to allow those in it to have jobs and reach retirement. That is, first and foremost the bureaucrats want to look out for their jobs and themselves.

    * To ensure they get the above they try to make their jobs as important and wide reaching as possible. The more things they control and do, the more people they supervise, the more likely their job is "safe."

    * This leads to a need to continuously expand the bureaucracy. Even as it becomes irrelevant it will try to expand. An excellent example is The March of Dimes. That charity was established specifically to eradicate polio. Polio is now eradicated.
    Did the March of Dimes go away? Hell no! It reinvented itself with an entirely new mission and wants more money to expand so it can go on doing good work!

    * A bureaucracy will also move towards total control and "zero tolerance" as it matures. That is, the bureaucracy has to regulate or do "stuff." But, if it stops making new regulations, stops demanding regulations expand, get tighter, or the like it violates the above self-imposed mandates.

    * The result is that a bureaucracy will expand in size, scope of control, and then seek to move to "Zero tolerance" of whatever they deal with.

    So, in the EPA's case they no longer are seeking to regulate pollution at some reasonable level. They seek, like the March of Dimes, to eradicate all pollution everywhere they can gain control over.
    It doesn't matter if they wreck the economy. It doesn't matter how many lives are ruined. All that matters is the bureaucracy survives and its members have meaning in their jobs for themselves and that they reach retirement.

    That last becomes a major issue for most government employees over time. It almost consumes them. When can I retire? How much will I get? How can I get more? The government gives employees training seminars on it.

    This is what needs to change.
    Everything you say is true but it applies universally.

    If you are a CEO all you care about is what financial package you get and your golden parachute. The same attitude even applies to medium size businesses. I have seem many businesses ran by people who are surprisingly disinterested in growing the business they have and direct most of their energy to outside investments. The last company my wife worked for the owner acquired the business by marriage gutted it and took the money.

    The what's in it for me mentality is prevalent and few people really care about doing a good job and it's not just a problem in government.

    If you say the free market weeds out the problem of indifferent owners it's not been my observation. I think Enron is an excellent example of how you can manipulate markets, make huge profits, and provide little or no real services if you are sufficiently indifferent to the future of the industry you are involved in. All you really have to know is when to get out and move on to the next opportunity to be successful. What makes the system work at all is that reputation is still important to some degree.

    Of course you can't paint all businesses, government agencies or managers with the same brush. Just as laws are meaningless if the people that enforce them are corrupt ultimately you have to rely on character or what they call moral fiber in any human enterprise. Most people including bureaucrats have some conscience and that is what keeps us bobbing along.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Yes or legislation from the bench. Whatever you guys like to call it. You cry murder on one decision, but this one serves your interests so you're quite happy with it.
    They didn't legislate anything. The EPA was not following the law. They remanded the case back down to a lower court.

    No laws were overturned. No rights were fabricated. They didn't void Article IV, Section 4 and Amendment X of the US Constitutiion along with the constitutions of 38 states... The law, as it is written, was enforced.
    Last edited by The Doctor; 30 Jun 15, 05:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    You may not like the EPA but the need for something like it is self evident.



    Like all Federal agencies the EPA suffers from the forest for the trees syndrome. My experience with regulatory agencies is that they are well intentioned even imaginative at the policy research level but have no concept up what is practical or desirable on the enforcement end and are often the victims of political manipulation at the upper end of policy mandates. I think you can see the same sort of thing play out in the DEA although it could be argued that it is reversed.

    Anyone familiar with the code of federal regulations quickly comes to realize that federal agencies are writing law. Same is true at the state level. It's our legislature's failure to address issues efficiently that often leads to agencies exceeding their mandate. It is equally true that the criminal disregard for public safety on the part of private institutions insured that agencies would have more extensive powers than would be reasonably expected.
    Where the EPA is a fail is that they have lost sight of their mandate just as any advocacy agency will eventually. It plays like this:

    * In any bureaucracy the number one purpose of it is to allow those in it to have jobs and reach retirement. That is, first and foremost the bureaucrats want to look out for their jobs and themselves.

    * To ensure they get the above they try to make their jobs as important and wide reaching as possible. The more things they control and do, the more people they supervise, the more likely their job is "safe."

    * This leads to a need to continuously expand the bureaucracy. Even as it becomes irrelevant it will try to expand. An excellent example is The March of Dimes. That charity was established specifically to eradicate polio. Polio is now eradicated.
    Did the March of Dimes go away? Hell no! It reinvented itself with an entirely new mission and wants more money to expand so it can go on doing good work!

    * A bureaucracy will also move towards total control and "zero tolerance" as it matures. That is, the bureaucracy has to regulate or do "stuff." But, if it stops making new regulations, stops demanding regulations expand, get tighter, or the like it violates the above self-imposed mandates.

    * The result is that a bureaucracy will expand in size, scope of control, and then seek to move to "Zero tolerance" of whatever they deal with.

    So, in the EPA's case they no longer are seeking to regulate pollution at some reasonable level. They seek, like the March of Dimes, to eradicate all pollution everywhere they can gain control over.
    It doesn't matter if they wreck the economy. It doesn't matter how many lives are ruined. All that matters is the bureaucracy survives and its members have meaning in their jobs for themselves and that they reach retirement.

    That last becomes a major issue for most government employees over time. It almost consumes them. When can I retire? How much will I get? How can I get more? The government gives employees training seminars on it.

    This is what needs to change.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    You are literally all the same people bashing SCOTUS in another thread. You realize this correct? Seems like "judicial activism" is helping you too.
    I'm bashing them elsewhere because they are allowing expansion of the federal government, far beyond constitutional bounds. Here they shot down regulations by a government agency that overreach. That's a good thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Well, the bastards got one thing right, at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Yes or legislation from the bench. Whatever you guys like to call it. You cry murder on one decision, but this one serves your interests so you're quite happy with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    You are literally all the same people bashing SCOTUS in another thread. You realize this correct? Seems like "judicial activism" is helping you too.
    Judicial activism?

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    You are literally all the same people bashing SCOTUS in another thread. You realize this correct? Seems like "judicial activism" is helping you too.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    You may not like the EPA but the need for something like it is self evident.



    Like all Federal agencies the EPA suffers from the forest for the trees syndrome. My experience with regulatory agencies is that they are well intentioned even imaginative at the policy research level but have no concept up what is practical or desirable on the enforcement end and are often the victims of political manipulation at the upper end of policy mandates. I think you can see the same sort of thing play out in the DEA although it could be argued that it is reversed.

    Anyone familiar with the code of federal regulations quickly comes to realize that federal agencies are writing law. Same is true at the state level. It's our legislature's failure to address issues efficiently that often leads to agencies exceeding their mandate. It is equally true that the criminal disregard for public safety on the part of private institutions insured that agencies would have more extensive powers than would be reasonably expected.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X