Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Valmy]

So shouldn't Congress come in take care of that issue? Shouldn't the executive branch make those decisions? Are we supposed to just argue in court about what constitutes a significant impact? What is the legal definition of significant impact in the context of Constitutional law? And does that mean in the future Congress would have to insert some clause saying that they are cool with significant impacts?

What you are talking about is the dismantling of the modern state.  Congress cannot possibly run the administrative machinery in place of the many administrative bodies needed to perform that task.

That seems to be the end goal of the right wing lunacy started in the 80s.

Well Congress is specifically not supposed to do that. That would violate the concept of separation of powers.

The  executive is also entirely I'll equipped to replace all of the administrative decisions made by the many administrative decision makers.

I don't know what you are suggesting.

I am suggesting that I don't understand what the Supreme Court will supposedly be saying nor do I understand how it is consistent with the Constitution. Even if the answer is that they are mustache twirling villains I still presume there is some legal reasoning behind it.

[Berkut]

The legal reasoning is as I described.

That the power to regulate these activities is vested in Congress. This is not under dispute.

Congress passes laws to create agencies to enforce their policies. Say the EPA.

The EPA then creates rules, regulations, and such to enforce the law as written by Congress. These agencies are run by the Executive.

What the USSC is going to say is that those agencies do not have the power to decide "major questions" without the enabling laws that created them *specifically* say that they can in fact do that. 

So the EPA can regulate and create rules, but there is some magic line beyond which they cannot, because to do so would be to exceed their Congressional authority, and hence that would be a transference of power from Congress, who passed the law creating and defining the EPA, to the Executive, who actually operates the EPA.

That is, as I understand it, the legal "reasoning" behind the USSC deciding that a bunch of state AGs, get to eviscerate the federal ability to basically do, well, much of anything.

[The Brain]

Will anyone be answerable for having unconstitutionally created the EPA and similar and continually having let them operate?

[Berkut]

Will anyone be answerable for having unconstitutionally created the EPA and similar and continually having let them operate?

The argument is not that it was unconstitutional to set them up or allow them to operate.

The argument is that they have exceeded the authority that they were given when they were setup.

[The Brain]

Will anyone be answerable for having unconstitutionally created the EPA and similar and continually having let them operate?

The argument is not that it was unconstitutional to set them up or allow them to operate.

The argument is that they have exceeded the authority that they were given when they were setup.

So will EPA managers face jailtime?

[Berkut]

Will anyone be answerable for having unconstitutionally created the EPA and similar and continually having let them operate?

The argument is not that it was unconstitutional to set them up or allow them to operate.

The argument is that they have exceeded the authority that they were given when they were setup.

So will EPA managers face jailtime?

One would hope.

Can you imagine all the oil and coal that they have caused to be falsely imprisoned in the ground that should have been set free???

[The Brain]

Will anyone be answerable for having unconstitutionally created the EPA and similar and continually having let them operate?

The argument is not that it was unconstitutional to set them up or allow them to operate.

The argument is that they have exceeded the authority that they were given when they were setup.

So will EPA managers face jailtime?

One would hope.

Can you imagine all the oil and coal that they have caused to be falsely imprisoned in the ground that should have been set free???

[Valmy]

So the EPA can regulate and create rules, but there is some magic line beyond which they cannot, because to do so would be to exceed their Congressional authority, and hence that would be a transference of power from Congress, who passed the law creating and defining the EPA, to the Executive, who actually operates the EPA.

That is, as I understand it, the legal "reasoning" behind the USSC deciding that a bunch of state AGs, get to eviscerate the federal ability to basically do, well, much of anything.

So ultimately it would just create a big mess in the Federal Courts and eventually just lead to a reform in the way bills are written in Congress and rules are written in the executive.

So sure I guess it could have a catastrophic collapse in federal authority, at least on the level of Congress and the Executive, but it kind of seems like in the end it will just be a huge waste of time and money and enrich many lawyers but will just lead to bills being longer and more byzantine to account for this eventually defined legal requirement, after many hours of cases and precedents, and executive administration having more complicated and hard to comprehend rules.

So everybody loses. Except the lawyers. And the courts. And the federal agencies that benefit from the byzantine and labyrinthine nature of federal administration. And the lobbyists who write Congressional bills. So I guess the judges are just looking after the poor downtrodden lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, and lobbyists in the federal system to the expense of everybody else. Just more of the same really.

I thought conservatives were supposed to bring us leaner and more efficient government by cutting the fat and enabling heroic politicians to save America and make it great again. Instead they seem to be making it more bloated and inefficient and disempowering the ability of politicians to do any saving or making anything great by empowering bureaucrats and lobbyists.

So I predict this will not actually impact much but create massive amounts of inertia.

Conservative hero guy elected to save America: Hey executive branch! I demand you do this!

Bureaucrat guy: Sorry this exceeds the Congressional Authority given to us. You are unable to do anything.

[Sheilbh]

Shielbh, yeah farming practices are going to be the most difficult (the most politically sensitive).  It's going to require convincing farmers that they will get good/better results using other techniques.

Yeah - and in a way that is not simply of neo-colonialism where we impose standards on farmers in the global south.

The current crisis in Sri Lanka is a bit of a concerning precedent. Also the EU is split on supporting fertiliser production in developing nations (as an alternative to importing from Russia and Belarus). Some countries back it, which I think is the right thing to do given the current context around food security, but the Commission and other countries have opposed it because it's contrary to EU energy and environment policies - as I say in my view that approach isn't right in the context of a food security crisis. It seems wrong to me that European countries are turning coal fired power plants back on to mitigate their exposure to the impact of the war on energy, but also opposing on environmental grounds any measures to support fertiliser production in the developing world that would led them mitigate their exposure to the war.

The other sectors seem easier and less insoluble globally than agriculture - not least because they tend to be more concentrated. There is (generally - Africa is bucking this trend) a centralised grid and energy system; industry is concentrated as are major transport links. There is a vast number of small farmers across the world which need to be involved in any solution.

There's an interesting Brexit/war angle here. The UK has had to develop its own subsidies system - at the minute we're still basically using the EU one but at a national level. What was proposed was hugely welcomed by environmental campaigners because it was subsidies related to land use so it incentivised re-wilding and environmentally friendly ways of using land or using land for the public good etc (good summary here: https://www.science.org/content/article/united-kingdom-embark-agricultural-revolution-break-eu-farm-subsidies). There were big questions over whether it was deliverable on the proposed timeline but the idea behind it was really positive. It's now getting a lot of pushback because of the war and the effect on food supplies/markets globally with people arguing actually maybe we still need to stick with basically subsidising production and whether this new "public good" focused system could risk food security in the UK and the UK's (small) contribution globally.

It's a big, big challenge - I feel like a key first step would be massive funding on less energy intensive/fossil fuel reliant fertiliser especially for the global south (and it helps push back on Belarus's major export plus some of the Russian economy too).

[crazy canuck]

It's a big, big challenge - I feel like a key first step would be massive funding on less energy intensive/fossil fuel reliant fertiliser especially for the global south (and it helps push back on Belarus's major export plus some of the Russian economy too).

I agree, that would be a good interim step.  But likely what is going to be required is further funding to subsidize farmers, and especially the small operators, to move to more sustainable farming practices.  Since a lot of Western countries already heavily subsidize farming, I am not sure how much more this would cost.  But it still needs farmer buy in.  If forced the results would be catastrophic.  If farmers, particularly in conservative areas, start pushing for that kind of support, then the politics will follow.  But I fear it is going to take more crop failures before they get it, and then its probably too late.

[viper37]

The Founding fathers did not include the EPA in the Constitution.  Therefore, it must be unconstitutional.
 

[Sheilbh]

I found this thread by Sky Economics Correspondent on raw materials necessary for energy transition particularly in Chile really interesting:
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1543219541337165824?s=20&t=HY9PztQzIpN-2RBhwlxSBw

Particularly interesting around Chile because, from what I've read, the new Latin American left is really linked to environmentalists and indigenous communities and are strongly anti-extraction - which is going to be a weird tension between global demand. In an ideal world it would probably lead to huge investment in affected communities and mitigation against the local environmental impact - that feels unlikely though

[Berkut]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/live-updates/supreme-court-epa-regulate-greenhouse-gas-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR2QpC2JtoaoDRIipcvrJol_sOs99yRNc-qiPUJh09QZSW6a1g53PhbWDEY

Tell me more about what a consistent, and rational juror Gorsuch is....

[Syt]

During the annual World Summit in Vienna, Lower Austria's governor Johanna Milk-Leiter (ÖVP) was asked what people could do against climate change in their daily lives. She said, "It starts with simple things, like clothing. You don't need 10 ball gowns, 3 are plenty." (She later apologized, saying that while she stands by the core of her message - more sustainable fashion/clothing decisions, considering keeping clothes for longer etc. - the chosen example may have come across as aloof or out of touch.)

[Eddie Teach]

Why are you booing her, she's right?