The veto awaits
Wait what? There’s an environment, and it needs protection? Who knew?
The sleeping giant of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stirred.
In the past month, an avalanche of anti-pollution rules, targeting everything from toxic drinking water to planet-heating gases in the atmosphere, have been issued by the agency. Belatedly, the sizable weight of the US federal government is being thrown at longstanding environmental crises, including the climate emergency.
On Thursday, the EPA’s month of frenzied activity was crowned by the toughest ever limits upon carbon pollution from America’s power sector, with large, existing coal and gas plants told they must slash their emissions by 90% or face being shut down.
Not just this month though.
In April, new emissions standards for cars and trucks [were issued that] will eliminate an expected 9bn tons of CO2 by the mid-point of the century, while separate rules issued late last year aim to slash hydrofluorocarbons, planet-heating gases used widely in refrigeration and air conditioning, by 4.6bn tons in the same timeframe. Methane, another highly potent greenhouse gas, will be curtailed by 810m tons over the next decade in another EPA edict.
In just a few short months the EPA, diminished and demoralized under Donald Trump, has flexed its regulatory muscles to the extent that 15bn tons of greenhouse gases – equivalent to about three times the US’s carbon pollution, or nearly half of the entire world’s annual fossil fuel emissions – are set to be prevented, transforming the power basis of Americans’ cars and homes in the process.
I don’t think the issue was that the EPA was demoralized under Trump, as it was that he would have vetoed anything they did.
But never mind. The Trump-packed Supreme Court will do it instead.
The various climate rules have involved grueling preparation from an agency still considered understaffed from the Trump years and now face a gamut of challenges. The right-leaning US supreme court limited the EPA’s options for cutting power plant emissions in a ruling last year and further legal challenges from Republican-led states are inevitable.
“This rule appears to utterly fly in the face of the rule of law,” said Patrick Morrisey, the attorney general of West Virginia, which triumphed in last year’s case. “We expect that we would once again prevail in court against this out-of-control agency.”
No doubt they will. Enjoy your luxury vacations, Clarence Thomas.
Just imagine where we’d be if we listened in the 1970’s about global warming, while we were at the same time subject to the flow of oil from OPEC countries. What if we had been serious then about cutting consumption, researching renewable fuels, cutting back on how much stuff we need manufactured and then tossed aside in order to keep our economy going?
We, as consumers, could certainly take a look at how much of the stuff we buy that we actually need. We’re on a cycle of buy and replace on short lifespans. We don’t repair our TV’s because it’s kind of a pain. We buy and upgrade a new phone on a swift cycle because we need new and better features. We buy clothes that look great this year, but (even if they are well take care of) are ugly next year because a new fashion has come out to make them look dated. It’s kind of a bell that can’t be unrung, because if we slow down our purchasing enough to have an effect on global warming, then it will drive our economy into a permanent recession until we can figure out how to restructure it to accommodate reality. The world thrives on manufacture, purchase, dispose, purchase. All driven by credit.
Industrial activity is the main driver of CO2 emissions. And that call comes from, essentially, demand for stuff. Stuff to be made, marketed, transported, and discarded. I do think we are kind of fucked. And as the climate changes, the crops fail. When that happens, then wars will escalate.
Mike H, my students are always surprised by the fact that things can last a long time. i have my grandmother’s furniture, some of my mother’s clothes, and i buy a lot of my clothes and kitchen things at garage sales and thrift stores.
Fashion is a tyrant that tortures people; I’ve never worried about fashion. I don’t upgrade phones (though I do have a bad habit of losing them…then finding them months later under the seat of my husband’s car). I use things until they wear out, because I think replacing them is a pain. I don’t like shopping (well, except book stores).
Our species used to live this way, until the “planned obsolescence” pioneers convinced us old things were bad, new things were good. It took a bit of a hit during the Depression, but roared back stronger when WWII was over.
And of course, every year we need a bigger screen for Super Bowl.Sunday.
I have several things in the house that are secondhand to me and I kind of like them. And I see all the empty boxes at my neighbors houses on recycling pickup day.
When I was a kid, my parents bought a new color television–circa 1970. The instruction manual came with the electrical schematic of the entire thing, and when the television malfunctioned my dad would get the schematic out and fix it. That television was still going strong in 1984 when I moved out to attend university, and it went with me. Four years later it moved into my first apartment with me, and many years after that I donated it to the local Goodwill, where some family picked it up for $10. For all I know, it’s still working today. That thing was sturdy. Meanwhile, I’ve gone through two modern flatscreen televisions in the last five years; nobody bothers to repair them because there is just one big chip in there, and it’s cheaper to buy an entirely new one than to replace that single circuit board. I tried to recycle the broken one, and it cost almost as much as buying a new one. Nevertheless, I paid that recycle fee. I hope it actually gets recycled and doesn’t just add to a landfill somewhere.
Recycle fee for a television?
We have a better system in Norway. Whenever you buy any piece of electronics or electric appliance, you pay the recycle fee up front. Actually recycling the damn thing is then free.
We have a similar system for cars. But it’s even better, as you actually get paid a modest sum when you take an old car to a certified car wrecker. Not enough to make it pay to do that instead of repairing it, but enough to dissuade you from just driving it iinto the nearest lake (which is illegal anyhow).
Even so, the problem of stuff not being repairable is as bad here as everywhere. Besides, we (many of us, not all) have just got too rich, so we throw away perfectly usable stuff in order to get the new shiny. I find it totally flabbergasting that most people upgrade their mobile phone every one or two years.
Much of my furniture is hand-me-downs. Many of my dishes are, too. When I’ve moved, many of the boxes I used a scrounged from work. I’ve also reused packing material.