In a nutshell, Trump tried to exclude a range of industries from pollution regulations by XO based on the theory that their individual share of pollution is below an arbitrary threshold that HE set. I guess not enforcing the law is – well – not enforcing the law. Enforcing the law AS WRITTEN is the President’s job even if he is not crazy about the law to be enforced.
I would add that even though the individual contributions to pollution of the industries he wanted to de-regulate were relatively small, the combined contribution of these industries is substantial.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Well, you can celebrate as Biden uses that authority to destroy a few hundred thousand more good paying jobs and return us to dependency on our enemies for energy.
Sooner or later, there will be no jobs left for more than minimum wage.
The things you take pleasure in are truly perverse.
LikeLike
Perverse? The more ugly ad hominem bullshit you spew, the more obvious that you have nothing of substance to say.
I take pleasure in the rule of law. Maybe that is “perverse” to you since all you care about is sticking your thumb in the eye of Democrats or getting the outcomes that you prefer. Lawlessly trying to exempt a substantial portion of industry from following the law was a bad decision and the Court was entirely correct to vacate such a stupid, illegal and incompetent Executive Order.
If you think anybody should be allowed to dump anything they want into the environment then change the law. At the ballot box. If you can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whole industrial sectors which collectively do not contribute 3% to total CO2 emissions need not be subject to regulatory costs that can crush new entries.
The entire US economy could disappear and not make a measurable difference in future climate, so what is the practical use of miring minor contributors to nothing in regulations only major corporations can afford to navigate?
LikeLike
“Whole industrial sectors which collectively do not contribute 3% to total CO2 emissions need not be subject to regulatory costs that can crush new entries.”
If that is what you think, then work with others and get the law changed.
The point which you want to ignore is that the President is not King and cannot change the law by edict. You understood that concept with President Obama’s Executive Orders – a couple of which were overturned in Court as this one was. Is it so hard to grasp when an order you like faces the same fate?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “In a nutshell, Trump tried to exclude a range of industries from pollution regulations by XO based on the theory that their individual share of pollution is below an arbitrary threshold that HE set.”
False. The president issued an XO that required federal agencies to review their standards for greenhouse gas regulations. The EPA complied and revised a vague standard to set a quantitative benchmark for when greenhouse gas emissions would be subject to regulation.
You are wrong to blame Trump’s XO for “trying to exclude a range of industries from pollution regulations.” The XO wasn’t that specific.
You are also wrong to suggest that the EPA’s rule change would allow significant greenhouse gas pollution. “The [revised] regulation says that only sectors whose pollution makes up more than 3 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions are ‘considered to contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.'”
Now that the rule has been vacated, industrial sectors that contribute less than 3% of all greenhouse gas pollution will henceforth be subject to federal regulation. Big whoop.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/543731-epa-asks-court-to-toss-trump-rule-that-could-prevent-emissions
LikeLike
False?
You think Trump’s toady’s were not doing what they were told to do? Good grief.
Reversing Trump’s unlawful action IS a Big Whoop. Those industries where Trump tried to cancel the law are individually small but combined are significant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Reversing Trump’s unlawful action IS a Big Whoop.”
Trump’s XO was not unlawful.
LikeLike
“Trump’s XO was not unlawful.”
Uh, the Court disagreed. A court cannot vacate an order because they think it is bad policy. The can only vacate an order that violates the Constitution or the Law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You need to read your own source more carefully. The court didn’t vacate the XO. It vacated the EPA’s revised standard.
LikeLike
A distinction without a difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “A distinction without a difference.”
It is a distinction which shows you were wrong, as I originally stated.
LikeLike
Yes, I was wrong. King Donald’s edict was not proclaimed in a formal Executive Order. He merely instructed EPA what he wanted done and they did it.
Since the form of his instruction is irrelevant, your correction was accurate but it remains a distinction without a difference. If anything, it is even worse for Kind Donald to order such changes with a wink and a nod than to put his orders in writing.
LikeLike
I dont see the big win here. Aside from the obvious, job killing liberal government carbon over regulation, why didn’t Biden just issue a new XO cancelling the old? If this requires the courts to decide, there is still the full federal appeals court and SCOTUS hurdles to overcome before claiming victory. No???
LikeLike
You raise a good question. Why not just issue a new Executive Order cancelling the old one? I do not have any particular information that might answer that question. I can only speculate that doing it through the Courts was to more firmly establish the principle that the Executive cannot simply ignore the law and must enforce it whether he likes it or not. Congress could have exempted some polluters. It didn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Job killing” “woke” “left wing mob” All buzzwords and phrases used by GOP and T****ists to attempt to scare the populace into believing anything done form a progressive standpoint is dangerous.
It is all bullshit. The GOP has NO policies. NONE. To sell to the populace. The party is dying on its own vine.
They have 2 choices, IMO 1) Come up with some sort of workable plan to help ALL Americans and not just their corporate partners. 2) Let themselves die. Either one is acceptable.
LikeLiked by 1 person