• BuelldozerA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    No, the basis is that the EPA has exceeded its regulatory authority by coming very close to ending ICE vehicles with its new rule. While I agree with what the EPA is doing with it’s new tailpipe emissions rule I also wonder at the advisability of letting politically appointed technocrats make such sweeping changes.

    It will be a good thing THIS time but will it always?

    • Sonori@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean, regulating air pollution and managing air quality in cities was literally the reason Republican president Richard Nixon created the environmental protection agency in the first place, and it has managed vehicle emissions standards for decades, so this very much feels like the agency doing exactly what it was created to do and has long done.

    • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      This echoes generic fear mongering of regulation from the conservative side. The EPA operates according to specific rules, it’s not just out there making random policies. Legislation creates the mandate, they promulgate within the law. What does “but will it always” do good things even mean? What are some bad things the EPA has done in your mind? Saying the government shouldn’t have the power to regulate emissions that are destroying the biosphere is absurd. There’s no right to ICE vehicles in perpetuity enshrined in the constitution. If the EPA ever start doing truly asinine things, then we elect leaders to change the laws dictating their mandate. This is just basic democracy stuff.

      • BuelldozerA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        This echoes generic fear mongering of regulation from the conservative side.

        No it acknowledges that changes that can be made from one administration to the next.

        What are some bad things the EPA has done in your mind?

        This took nearly 30 years.

        Saying the government shouldn’t have the power to regulate emissions that are destroying the biosphere is absurd.

        I haven’t said that nor would I but $GovernmentAgency isn’t a synonym for “The Government”. What’s being discussed are the limits of an Agency attached to the Executive Branch relative to the power of the Legislative Branch.

        What does “but will it always” do good things even mean?

        This, this right here is what it means.

        The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules.

        That’s what can happen when an Agency of the Executive “does things” on its own authority.

        If the EPA ever start doing truly asinine things, then we elect leaders to change the laws dictating their mandate.

        How’s that been working out for the last 20 years?

        • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The reality is everything is at risk with a fascist anti-environmentalist leader, especially if they have a majority of Congress and the courts. I just don’t see how exercising additional restraint with respect to fuel economy standards, as if that creates opportunities for abuse down the road, helps anything here. The EPA is following the law, and should keep doing that. Your example with asbestos is just the EPA not regulating harder, so let’s applaud harder regulation.

          As to the last 20 years, considering the makeup of Congress, I’d say the IRA was monumental.