Hawkeye, or ajax wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:13 pmLet's get those prices jacked up where they need to be.
Where was that part in your article?
Hawkeye, or ajax wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:13 pmLet's get those prices jacked up where they need to be.
You should read up on the prisoner’s dilemma. Your approach leads to the worst possible outcome for everyone.Hawkeye wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:40 amThat's kind of the point of the thread. Nonglobal environmental regulations and economic sacrifices don't save the planet. They just make the people who are subject to these regulations poorer and in the case of France, hot in the summer and cold in the winter.You know that what you are saying here is ridiculous don't you? Europe's environmental regulations, if carried through as they should be, cannot possibly "save the planet" on their own,
Ajax stubbornly refuses to think about the demand side of the equation. For example, if we subsidize non-fossil fuel sources of electricity generation, the price of fossil fuels will ______.canpakes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:12 amHawkeye, or ajax wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:13 pmLet's get those prices jacked up where they need to be.
Where was that part in your article?
That decision by the Supreme Court is every bit as irrational as declaring that the world is flat or trying to repeal the law of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity. For this idiotic decision alone the 6 conservatives on the court deserve to be both mercilessly ridiculed and impeached!Justice Elena Kagan wrote a scathing dissent, joined by the court's two liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
"Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time," Kagan wrote.
"Courts should be modest. Today, the court is not," she said. "The court will not allow the Clean Air Act to work as Congress instructed. The court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much. Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. The court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening."
Kagan’s dissent is well written and powerful, but she engaged in a bit of hyperbole here. There is lots to criticize here. This was an extremely activist decision by Conservatives who decry such activism when they don’t like the result. The majority ignored the long established rules of statutory construction, including the statutory history, the history of changes to the act, and other parts of the relevant statute. It failed to even mention the leading case on the topic, substituting a new rule. Not only that, the EPA had asked for and has been granted a stay because the regulation at issue was obsolete and needed to be rewritten. So, the Court basically did what it isn’t supposed to do: issue an advisory opinion.Gunnar wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:48 amSupreme Court rules for coal-producing states, limits EPA's power to fight climate change
That decision by the Supreme Court is every bit as irrational as declaring that the world is flat or trying to repeal the law of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity. For this idiotic decision alone the 6 conservatives on the court deserve to be both mercilessly ridiculed and impeached!Justice Elena Kagan wrote a scathing dissent, joined by the court's two liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
"Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time," Kagan wrote.
"Courts should be modest. Today, the court is not," she said. "The court will not allow the Clean Air Act to work as Congress instructed. The court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much. Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. The court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening."