8 thoughts on “Good News”

  1. I hate it when I agree with the intent and impact of the ruling but disagree with the legal basis for it. This was a bad ruling, it constrains future administrations to to direction given by past administrations. This was a problem that slowed implementation of several Trump EOs. It was wrong then it’s wrong now.

  2. The cost of not emitting enough climate-changing CO2 is that everything north of Columbus Ohio will get wiped out by glaciers for 70,000 years. 20% of American’s GDP plus all of Canada’s GDP, over 70,000 years, comes to about 40 quadrillion dollars, which is over a billion dollars per current person.

    Billing people for science-fantasies is fun!

    1. It’d be extremely funny if Climate Change action throws us into a Snowball Earth phase (you know, where Rio de Janeiro is under a mile-high glacer). Of course, us geezers will miss most of the fun, but our descendants will endure a real knee-slapper! Except for the ones living in Elonopolis and watching from afar…

  3. The authorities will simply change the name. Just like “Climate Change” has replaced “Global Warming”. We have pretty good consensus now that “a pause”, now and then, occurs in the instrumental temperature record. And so the idea of steady, ever-increasing, warming has been upstaged by new ideas and terminology about wild thundersnow and polar vortex and drought and flood fires and awful scary change, generally. Bogus, but the new rhetoric has been useful to authorities. Authoritarians. And so if the ruling says that Climate Change — specifically — is no longer a matter of their purview then there will be a new crisis. “Carbon Fallout”, or something equally meaningless and terrifying.

  4. I agree with the article that this is a significant change in precedent that is unlikely to stand – but it builds on the precedent of limitations on the Trump EOs. I’m all for anything that cements a bipartisan limitation of executive power. Totally okay with any impacts this has on future presidents regardless whether I agree with that president or not.

    1. I would agree. IANAL, but if I read it correctly, the issue is that regulations haven’t been issued, just an executive order stating to how to issue regulations. Honestly, I don’t think it should make a difference. If an executive order tells an agency to do something clearly outside it’s authority or clearly contrary to the law, I don’t see why the courts have to wait until the regulations are formally posted.

Comments are closed.