Sheldon Whitehouse rips the so-called supreme court

Now to insist that co2 be regulated is to insist that we all be slaves of the administrative state but that ultimately is the goal of the administrative state in the first place. The crack pots and authoritarians are all on the left and pretty much always have been in this country.

 

Of course I read it. SCOTUS sided with the petitioners (Massachusetts, 11 other states, and several environmental advocacy organizations) - which is why I asked you why it was a 'debacle of a decision'. It was a good decision forcing the EPA to do its job, and a win for environmentalists/environmental protection.

Why it matters: In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal agency could not cite policy preferences as a reason for refusing to regulate certain issues under its purview.

That's' how it 'works.' But I'll ask again.

How can we expect lawmakers to enact impactful laws protecting the environment (and thus the health/well-being of all) when it's contaminated with too many right-wing corporate shills? And how can we be sure those who are elected got there fairly, I mean, with all the voter suppression tactics & laws coming from the GOP? You don't seem to mind having the fox watch the hen house, do you?

You also don't seem to understand the environmental impact of continued industrial CO2 emissions. The effects we're seeing today (and progressing) were predicted long before computers came of age - as early as the mid-19th Century. Numerous additional studies carried out in the 20th Century corroborated a series of 19th Century studies on the potential of CO2 to increase global temperatures.

Eunice Newton Foote wrote up in her experiment for an 1856 issue of The American Journal of Science that, “An atmosphere of that [CO2] gas, would give to our earth a high temperature.”

https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicted-global-warming/

In fact, geochemist Wallace Broecker coined the term "global warming" in the 1970s. Modern super-computer modeling has only confirmed all the very old, but prophetic, predictions.

See also the following video on pre-computer global warming predictions.

The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco

You're probably also unaware that Exxon carried out its own scientific studies on global warming (to the company's dismay).

Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better.
Research shows that company modeled and predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy' starting in the 1970s
Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

We're lucky the oceans have been able to absorb ~90% of the increase in heat. But that's bad for the ocean & its life, and greatly disrupts global weather & ocean currents - among a cascade of other effects. And, besides, how long will ocean's heat sink capacity hold out?

Of course. But he also knows his hands are tied as long as the do-nothing GOP can continue to effectively exert its Congressional power. This is why people like Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren have been unable for decades to pass their most important progressive proposals. Most politicians, like most Americans, are still under the spell of its corporatocracy. How else could someone like tin-pot dictator & career criminal con-man Trump ever have 'won' a presidential election?

You mean because the facts aren't debatable.

 

No. It means the biggest polluters - primarily the fossil fuel industries - will be more strictly regulated. It also means making a more effective & rapid transition towards renewable energy & green technologies. One way or another, we need to go completely 'electric.'

You say that - yet you're okay with corporate authority, plus the $trillions they receive in subsides annually from your taxes, plus their use of your taxes to bribe politicians. And you're also okay with their complete disregard for your air, water, soil, food, and health. You may not care about your health, but what about your family's & others you love/care about? What will you do if/when they become chronically or acutely ill from environmental contaminants? Oh yes, you would seek the help of another corporate group - the insurance industry - and/or hope that taxpayer funding might offset some of those costs to resolve a problem caused by corporate polluters.

 

Very good. And by the way, this has been a large part of my career working with and for the Federal government as an automotive engineer so I was actually in DC when Massachusetts v. EPA was decided and for several years after.

What you're missing is that the government has been eroding the proper way of rulemaking since the 60s, producing political hacks like Whitehouse who have long, profitable careers for actually doing nothing. The CAA doesn't actually say anything about CO2 and technically it's not a pollutant. So the only way the enviros could push it through is with a nonsense lawsuit the avoids trouble with reality.

But it looks very promising that the Chevron deference doctrine will be obliterated next year, well before the draconian EPA emissions rules destroy the economy.

And all the paranoid conspiracy theories in the world won't stop it.

Thank you Donald Trump!

 

Absolutely clueless. CO2 is plant food. Leftist tools world wide produce more CO2 year in and year out than every car on the planet.

 

Don't blame the 'govt.' Blame the people for putting political sell-outs into positions of power. Govts (and its systems) are nothing but the net expression of what the collective fears vs what it needs. If fear dominates, govt becomes more authoritarian. If need dominates, govt becomes more socialist. Thus, the mode of mass programming/conditioning by any authoritarian is to exploit fear as a means to distract from actual need.

All the crap that happens in any monetary/capitalist society has only one single cause - wealthy, whiny, spoiled capitalists. This is why these societies (and empires) fail - while money-less, indigenous cultures have survived for tens of millennia.

--------------------------
And no. Whitehouse is not a hack. Thanks to the right-wing party of corporate crackpots, he, like many other Dems (particularly progressives), is unable to fully exercise his job of legislating the necessary reforms to best serve the people & nation. American corporations will fight tooth & nail to keep & grow their $billions - which is why they can't ever allow any measure of progressive (European-style) legislation to gain a foothold in their cash cow. And they'll spend great effort & money in bribing public officials & to convince you that the allowance of any kind of liberal, democratic, socialist European-style element will turn America into a Soviet Union, a China, or a North Korea - none of which have ever been 'socialist' nor 'communist' to begin with.

CO2 is not the only component of stationary & mobile emissions, but only one part of the aerosolized chemicals present in the release of common pollutants. These can include sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain), nitrogen oxides, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, particulate matter, mercury, and others. Five of these chemicals (plus CO2) have been determined by the EPA to be GHGs that need to be regulated. Thus, in its effort to address these toxic pollutants, the EPA can't curtail such emissions without also curtailing CO2 & other GHGs. It just so happens that CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are the main driver of global warming. CO2 is highest when coal is burned, followed by oil and natural gas.

With that said - after the Massachusettes ruling, the EPA's view was that this required the agency to make a positive or negative endangerment finding under Section 202(a) of the CAA - and hence to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles "cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision" (EPA's Endangerment Finding). This was the EPA's finding:

From wiki:
On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator [Lisa P. Jackson] found that under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act greenhouse gases threaten both the public health and the public welfare, and that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to that threat. This final action has two distinct findings, which are:

1) The Endangerment Finding, in which the Administrator found that the mix of atmospheric concentrations of six key, well-mixed greenhouse gases threatens both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. These six greenhouse gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These greenhouse gases in the atmosphere constitute the "air pollution" that threatens both public health and welfare.

2) The Cause or Contribute Finding, in which the Administrator found that the combined greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. ...

The EPA Administrator also found that GHGs could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public welfare in the following ways:

Agriculture – While higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations may stimulate plant growth, climatic changes may also promote the spread of pests and weeds, increase ground level ozone formation (which is detrimental to plant life), and change temperature and precipitation patterns. Uncertainty remains about the extent to which these factors will balance each other but the evidence suggests a net disbenefit, with the potential for future crop failure.

Forestry – As with agriculture, uncertainties remain but there is evidence of an increase in the size and occurrence of wildfires, insect outbreaks, and tree mortality in parts of the U.S. These effects are expected to continue with future changes in climate.
Water resources – The effects of climate change on the water cycle have already been observed. For example, there is "well-documented evidence of shrinking snowpack due to warming" in the western U.S. These changes in snowfall are likely to affect areas such as California that rely on snowmelt for their water supply. Climate change is also expected to impact the water supply in other areas of the country, increasing competition for its use.
Sea level rise – The greatest risk to the U.S. associated with sea level rise is the extent to which it will exacerbate storm-surge flooding. Areas along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts including New Orleans, Miami, and New York City are particularly vulnerable to such effects.
Energy – Climate change is expected to increase peak electricity demand. This may further constrain water resources as power plants rely heavily on water for cooling. A large portion of U.S. energy infrastructure is located in coastal areas and may be at risk to damage from flooding.
Ecosystems and wildlife – Changes in habitat range, timing of migration, and reproductive behavior have already been observed and are expected to increase with further warming. Ocean warming and acidification are expected to impair marine species such as corals, and the loss of arctic sea ice will reduce habitat for a number of species. Spruce-fir forests are, "likely to disappear from the contiguous United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_greenhouse_gases_under_the_Clean_Air_Act

Sure. That makes a lot of sense. Let's hand more power over to the private sector to influence the courts, and ignore Congress & the federal agencies. Of what benefit would that be to people, society, and the environment - other than to serve the interests of big business and the politicians whom they bribe?

You see how there's always this struggle between what's best for all and what capitalists want? Capitalists confer absolutely no benefit to society, yet are privileged (by design) with the most power/influence. But we need to be honest with ourselves & admit this is only possible as long as we/the people allow it.

Well, enjoy your rising cost of living as global warming ravages farmland, infrastructure, cities/towns, the energy sector, the supply chain, and socio-economic systems all over the world - not to mention an increase in climate migrations & refugees. The corporations will love the chaos, which they'll exploit to price gouge you at the market & buy up the spoils of public debts, bankruptcies & growing poverty.

 

What do you mean by "leftist tools"?

Re. CO2, you talk as if that's all CO2 does. Sure, CO2 can stimulate plant growth (to a point), but earth's ecosystem is a finely tuned, continuously balancing & interconnected system with complex feedbacks. It's a simple matter to boost plant growth in a pristine, climate controlled greenhouse setting with plenty of water & fertilizer, and free of bugs/pests & weeds. But the real world is a different matter.

Other than the fact that the intensification of droughts, flooding, wildfires, and extreme weather events have a negative impact on crops, plants & wildlife, excessive CO2 has additional negative effects. Here are key points to keep in mind:

* There’s a limit to the amount of CO2 plants can absorb and, with increasing deforestation, this limit is getting lower. It’s not the nature of CO2 that causes problems, it’s the quantity & rate of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

* CO2 at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth, while higher temperatures had a negative effect. Scientists found that only higher nitrogen levels resulted in higher plant productivity, while higher temperatures caused it to decline.

The increase in heat causes plant growth & crop yields to decline. For example, just a 1°C rise in global temperature will decrease wheat yields by about 5% (approximately 35 million tons). The evidence suggests we’re at or near the point where rising atmospheric CO2 levels will no longer benefit overall plant growth, while the rising heat that comes along with that carbon are generally detrimental to plant productivity. Climate change is bad news for several of our staple crops.

* Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain plants. There's also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2. Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

* As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

* Plants can't live on CO2 alone. Complete & efficient plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It's a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse, but what about in dynamic real world conditions?

* CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will the extra water come from, especially for artificially irrigated crops?

* Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open, this creates changes in plant chemistry that make these specimens more vulnerable to insects. Any weakness in a plant opens it up to a host of parasitic/opportunistic diseases, as well as competition by weeds in crops. This leads to the use of more artificial fertilizers and more toxic pesticides & herbicides. These chemicals also negatively impact important soil microorganisms.

* Rising CO2 increases temperatures throughout the Earth, so deserts and other types of dry land will expand. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

* Excessive increases in rainfall that cause flooding does not benefit plants. For example, when rain falls in short, intense bursts it doesn't have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil, minerals & fertilizer.

* Eric Davidson, Executive Director and Senior Scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, led a review of 100 studies looking at the effects of disturbance and climate change on the functioning of the Amazon Basin. It concluded that the combination of deforestation, forest degradation, and the effects of climate change are weakening the resilience of the Amazon ecosystem, potentially leading to loss of carbon storage and changes in rainfall patterns and river discharge. Among the changes was a shift from rainforest to savanna. ... The southern Amazon transition forest is experiencing more drought, longer dry seasons, and more fire. Wet season river flooding and sedimentation has also increased in this region — another indicator of forest decline. Dan Nepstad, Director at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), agreed. “After studying the Amazon rainforest for 28 years, it is clear that one third or more of this mighty ecosystem is vulnerable to severe degradation through the interacting influences of devastating droughts, fire, forest conversion to crops and pastures, and logging.
https://news.mongabay.com/2012/07/s...t-climate-change-will-be-good-for-the-amazon/

* Oceans absorb ~30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere, which alters its chemistry. The results have led to a lower pH (ocean acidification), bleaching of coral reefs, weakening of shells & skeletons of marine organisms, negative impact on predatory & reproductive abilities of fish/organizms, etc. Exessive CO2 is also causing the acidification of freshwater lakes.

* Excess CO2 is causing sea level rise.

* Excess CO2 is causing sea temperatures to rise, which has a cascade of effects both within and outside of the sea.

* It’s true that there have been periods of global warming and cooling — also related to spikes and lulls in greenhouse gases — during the Earth’s long history. But those historic increases in CO2 should be a warning to us: They led to serious environmental disruptions, including mass extinctions. Today, humans are emitting greenhouse gases at a far higher rate than any previous increase in history.

 

Nonsense We've had ice ages begin at 1500 parts per million we are a bit above 400 parts per million. It was nearly near 40% in the early Triassic. You want us to wet out collective pants over an increase of 1.2 parts per 10k in the last 140 years.

 

First of all, you were talking about CO2 being a plant food, and implying that more CO2 was perfectly good for the planet. So I addressed that, listing the many reasons why it's nowhere near the panacea you were making it out to be.

As to your reply, your argument makes no sense from a human survival & ecological standpoint.

1. I said, "Today, humans are emitting greenhouse gases at a far higher rate than any previous increase in history." So I was talking about rate of emission, not ppm.

With that said, let's look at human history: During the ice age cycles of the past million years or so, atmospheric CO2 never exceeded 300 ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution (~1750s), atmospheric carbon dioxide was no higher than 280 ppm. In 2022, CO2 was measured at 417.06 ppm - which places us at CO2 levels comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum (4.1 - 4.5 million years ago), when they were close to or above 400 ppm.

However, well beyond that period, about 50+ million years ago, the ppm may even have been as high as 1000 ppm (and even 200 times greater than today 1.4 billion years ago). At that time there was very little ice, temperatures were ~10 C higher, and sea levels were ~60 meters higher than they are today. It was not at all a world suitable for the development of human civilization. Still, in the past those amounts were reached more slowly. By contrast, the increase (over 20 ppm) over the last 60 years is 100 times faster than previous natural increases. This is happening very rapidly & is not cyclical. On the geologic time scale, the increase from the end of the last ice age to the present looks virtually instantaneous. CO2 is now increasing at the fastest rate of anytime within the past 66 million years.

2. If all the forcings that drive climate today are examined (which has been thoroughly analyzed), we find that CO2 is the greatest forcing & also the fastest rising. Over the last 30 years of direct satellite observation of the Earth’s climate, many natural influences including orbital variations, solar and volcanic activity, and oceanic conditions like El Nino and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have either had no effect or promoted cooling conditions. Despite these natural oppositions, global temperatures have steadily risen throughout that time.

3. More atmospheric CO2 will have a disastrous effect on all life on the planet. So you should be happy we are nowhere near what they were many millions of years ago. If CO2 levels didn't remain relatively stable for the last ~million years, we'd never have had a human civilization - let alone a human species.

 

BREAKING: SCOTUS unanimously yanks chain on EPA in Sackett

'Anyone want to take bets on the life expectancy of the Chevron doctrine after today’s unanimous decision on Sackett v EPA? The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the EPA had grossly overstepped its congressional mandate in defining “Waters of the United States,” vastly limiting its authority to declare jurisdiction over what it claims to be “wetlands” on private property.'



'It’s the second such loss in as many years for the EPA’s attempt to aggrandize its jurisdiction.'

No more taking of another's property over a seasonal puddle.

'the law extends only to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.”'

'In both instances, the EPA had tried to extend its authority without involving Congress. In this case, which has been percolating for years, the Obama-era EPA had defined the term “wetland” in the Clean Water Act and Waters of the US rule (WOTUS) as basically any land where water naturally pooled on occasion. That led the EPA in 2004 to block Mike and Chantell Sackett from completing a home on their residential-zoned Idaho lot of less than an acre and socking them with massive per-day fines until they dismantled what had already been built — even though their land was nowhere near a navigable body of water, as the WOTUS rule required.'

'So what’s next? The Supreme Court has taken up a case for next term, Loper Bright, that challenges the Chevron doctrine requiring courts to defer to federal agencies for definition of terms and application of rules. This court appears far more skeptical than ever about federal agencies and their “definitions” when it comes to setting their own authority and jurisdictions. Sackett yanked that chain back on the EPA; Loper Bright might do the same for the entire federal bureaucracy.'

https://nypost.com › 2021 › 06 › 21 › sheldon-whitehouse-under-fire-for-membership-at-all-white-club
Sheldon Whitehouse under fire for membership at all-white club

'Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse bills himself as a progressive and prominent critic of "systemic racism" — but has a membership to an all-white private beach club in Rhode Island.'

 

Can't like this enough. Yeah, I'm getting just a tad hopeful finally after all these years of waiting.

 

He's old money rich white elitist who pretends to care about the poor in order to buy their votes