Tag Archives: regulation

“Who Do You Work For?”

Posted on by
Reply

The stereotypical Chicago question applies to the governorship of Kentucky. The Wall Street Journal‘s editors put the question to the State’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Andy Beshear.

Will he listen to parents or unions on federal tax credit scholarships?

The State’s legislature passed legislation that would opt the State into the Federal government’s school choice program, which would be the only school choice program the State has. That was over a week ago, but Beshear still has it on his desk, unsigned.

Beshear’s…hesitation…answers the question. Kentucky’s parents don’t pay his salary. Neither do the unions directly, just through their political donations and their votes.

On top of that, the fact that the legislature could easily override his veto serves only to give him cover for his inaction: “The legislature made me do it (apologies for the opening ad).”

A Cynically Irrelevant Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the lede:

A coalition of climate and health organizations sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday in an effort to combat its repeal of a landmark climate finding.

Because of course they do. The landmark climate “finding” that has been repealed is the finding that plant food in the form of atmospheric CO2 actually is a pollutant. That fiction has expanded costs of living for us American citizens for decades, and its removal is good riddance. Nevertheless, the climate funding industry is waxing hysterical over the nation’s turn toward rationality.

Their suit proceeds, cynically, from an irrelevancy. Peter Zalzal, of the Environmental Defense Fund:

Repealing the endangerment finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths.

Even were that true—it isn’t—it’s irrelevant. The question is an economic, and so a political, one. Our courts have no jurisdiction for hearing this argument. Our judges and Justices are bound by our Constitution and their oaths of office to uphold and defend it, and by their oaths they’re further constrained to rule based on the text of any statute that comes before them. They cannot, legitimately, rule based on what they wished our Constitution and statutes said, nor can they, legitimately, rule based on their personal views of what’s good or bad for our society.

This sort of suit should be tossed at the outset, with prejudice, and with sanctions on the lawyers and their employing firms for bringing frivolous suits.

End of Start-Stop

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration announced Thursday noon-ish a complete end to automatic start-stop in our cars. This is a mistake IMO, and it’s a sad example of a nominally conservative administration turning toward nanny-state-ism.

It’s certainly true that many of us American drivers don’t like the technology and wish it gone. It’s also certainly true, though, that many of us American drivers do very much like the technology. Count me in the latter group.

With my 2023 model Ford Escape, I get much improved mileage in city driving when my car’s engine shuts off while sitting at a red light waiting for it to go back to green. My car does this utterly reliably and with no discernable wear and tear on the car’s starter or on the car’s engine-start battery—even in the Texas summer heat or the (surprisingly ugly) Texas winter cold. Only my battery’s aging OEM status interferes with the function: my car complains of not enough charge to support start-stop. Which is to be expected for a car that’s parked on the street in the Texas sun.

There is an easy solution to this one-size-fits-all disconnect among us Americans over start-stop. Taking my Escape as an example, I have a button on the panel just in front of my center console that turns off the start-stop function, but that only lasts until I arrive at my destination and shut everything down. When next I start my Escape, which involves much more than just turning the engine on, the car’s automatic start-stop function is itself restarted.

It would be a simple, one-line coding effort to turn that start-stop button into a toggle: push it once, and the function is turned off, and stays off even after a complete shutdown and restart of the car. After starting the car anew, pushing the button again would toggle the start-stop function back on, to remain on through successive car shut downs and restarts until the button is toggled again. Let the car come from the dealer with the function defaulted to Off; those of us who like the function are fully capable of turning it on with that button push and then leaving it on.

Another option, albeit much more expensive, would be to make start-stop an option for car buyers to purchase as an add-on when they buy their car.

Either of these would let those of us who do not want the start-stop function to not have it working, and those of us who do to have it; even if one of them would more expensive for car buyers to buy and more expensive for car makers to make.

In either case, though, both groups of us American drivers would do fine without the nanny state dictating our choices.

A Couple of Regulatory Environments

Posted on by
Reply

These need to be dealt with along with the EPA’s effort to deregulate energy production. “These” are the FAA’s regulation of rocket launches—the conservative right blames the FAA’s climate impact concerns, but those are not the only ones—and the FCC’s regulation of satellite deployment. Here, Progressive-Democrats are letting their hatred of all things Evil Rich get in the way of intelligent decision making.

The Federal Aviation Administration separately evaluates the environmental impact of rocket launches in the US, which has in the past delayed satellite launches.

And

Maria Cantwell objected because the bill [that would streamline and accelerate FCC satellite approvals] would help Mr Musk’s AI space ambition.

As The Wall Street Journal‘s editors closed their piece,

Permitting difficulties are America’s economic Achilles’ heel. Let’s hope they don’t get in the way of US space innovation.

It’s a Legal Question

Posted on by
Reply

It’s most assuredly not a medical question, nor is it a climate question. The EPA is going to announce (if it hasn’t already at the time this post is published) a roll-back of its Gina McCarthy-Barack Obama era “finding” that atmospheric carbon dioxide was a pollutant, a finding that enabled the exploding and increasingly intrusive and costly regulatory environment over a host of CO2 emission items.

The final rule, set to be made public later this week, removes the regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify, and comply with federal greenhouse-gas emission standards for motor vehicles, and repeals associated compliance programs, credit provisions and reporting obligations for industries, according to administration officials.
It wouldn’t apply to rules governing emissions from power plants and other stationary sources such as oil-and-gas facilities, the officials said. But repealing the finding could open up the door to rolling back regulations that affect those facilities.

Many of those latter regulations do need to be removed, but not all. Sulphur and mercury in smokestack emissions, for instance, still are things, but these are easily controlled—and have been for years—even with now-aging technologies and will remain regulated. CFC impacts on atmospheric ozone is less settled, but will remain regulated until a more definitive answer—by actual scientists, not government bureaucrats with science degrees or degreed folks employed by the climate funding industry—is reached.

The kicker is in this:

Public health and environmental groups have said federal climate regulations help prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths each year.

Even were that true, it is, or it would be in a properly objective court, irrelevant to the question of whether the McCarthy/Biden EPA finding can be repealed. Notice that: can be, not should be. This is a purely legal question: can one administration withdraw a regulatory finding and associated regulations that a prior administration enacted? Of course it can, and a current administration can rescind such things unilaterally. Only Congressionally-enacted statutes require subsequent Congressionally-enacted statutes to be rescinded. All it takes is judges and Justices who will honor their oaths of office and hew themselves to what our Constitution and the statutes before them say rather than what they might wish they said.

Of course, many of today’s District and appellate judges are badly trained by such claptrap as the chapter in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, used by the Federal Judicial Center to “train” judges on climate systems, attribution science, and methodologies used to link greenhouse gas emissions to specific impacts by representing these things as settled science. The chapter has since been removed from the manual, but not necessarily the separate “training” associated with it, and certainly not the “training” already done.

As the WSJ correctly noted, here come now the climate-funding industry and its fee-seeking lawyers.

Environmental groups have said they would challenge a rollback in the courts, and it could be years before litigation is resolved.

Because of course they will. There’re tons of money to be made from their manufactured climate hysteria, and that income pig trough needs to be protected. There also are fees to be collected from those lawsuits.

Never mind that atmospheric CO2 is plant food, without which humans and plants aren’t the only species that don’t eat.