Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 351 to 400:
-
nigelj at 07:33 AM on 24 July 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
Just adding to Bob Loblows comments. In my view the term free market is a bit problematic, because what is meant by the term free? Taken literally it would mean people are free to do what they like including theft and murder, so you have the rule of the jungle. Of course no modern markets work like that, there is basic criminal and property law. The free market is thus really a managed market in practice.
The question is how many other restraints / constraints are acceptable? Many economists say markets should not have tariff protections or price controls but its acceptable to have governmnet regulations relating to health and safety and the environment and anti monopoly laws. This is common in practice in many countries, and seems sensible to me. Some even call this a free market.
Free markets really is a terrible term and when we use the term we need to define what we mean by it. I should have done that. I did in fact mean the free market in its unconstrained form and without governmnet interventions, and this is not inherently good at providing adequate health and safety outcomes. Thus the need for adequate regulations. Whether we have this in practice is of course up for debate.
-
David-acct at 07:26 AM on 24 July 2024Why is the Texas grid in such bad shape?
Centerpoint which is the houston area electric provider requested funds from the US DOE to upgrade the houston area electric distribution system using funds avaiable due to the inflation reduction act. The DOE said no. The local distribution systems are not part of ERCOT, thus no blame can be placed on ERCOT
www.chron.com/weather/article/houston-beryl-centerpoint-doe-grid-19571835.php
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:00 AM on 24 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
In comment 7, Eclectic mention a Youtube video from the LegalEagle channel that discusses this topic. This is the direct link to that video. I finally got around to viewing it a few days ago.
Although the ads are annoying, the video does provide some interesting details on a number of the historical precedents that are related to the most recent Supreme Court decision. The producers of that video obviously have a viewpoint about the SCOTUS decision that TWFA and David-acct probably will not agree with, but it is definitely worth watching if you don't know what the fuss is all about.
Two of the predictions they make are interesting:
- This decision will lead to huge numbers more lawsuits against regulatory agencies, which will choke the legal system.
- This decision will stifle regulatory actions and result in regulations (if the agencies don't simply give up) that will be increasingly complex as they try to avoid future legal challenges. Not efficient - but that is a feature, not a bug, if the goal is to choke the $#!^ out the regulatory agencies so that industry can do whatever they darn well please and can externalize the damage they cause (i.e., get someone else to pay for it).
At the end of the video, one of the points they make is that it is worthwhile in such (legal) cases to look at the end of the brief, to determine who it is that decided to spend money on challenging a law in court. For the two cases that led to this SCOTUS decision, the plaintiffs are well-funded think tanks that include the Koch brothers as sources of funding.
This case is not "the little guy looking for justice". This is rich industrialists with a primary goal of getting richer. Why worry about trying to achieve "regulatory capture" when you can accomplish "legal system capture"?
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:39 AM on 24 July 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
I think I'd go further than "deconstruct" or "dismantle". If we are looking for antonyms to "construction", then I think "demolition" is the one that comes to mind. There are certain elements in the US (and other countries) that simply want to blow up any sort of regulation or governance that gets in their way.
ClearnAir27 is correct that there is really no completely "free market" economy anywhere. There might have been back in the days 100,000 (+ ?) years ago when everyone lived in little tiny family groups. Even then, when Grog discovered how to make a club and decided that he could just bash the head in of anyone that got in his way, others would have decided that they, too, could make clubs and bash heads in. "Society" would have started to put constraints on how people could behave towards others, subject to the wrath of the group as a whole.
[On the other hand, maybe we have not advanced that much from Grog's way of thinking.]
Taking a look at that page for The Fourth Branch, I kind of like the phrase "the accumulating derangements in the American constitutional system". Not enough to buy the book, though. I'm sure the Libertarians would view it as yet another One World Government to Rule Us All.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:18 AM on 24 July 2024CO2 is coming from the ocean
ThePooleMan:
Also take a look at this post, which explains a simple mass balance approach to the cause of atmospheric CO2 increases.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:12 AM on 24 July 2024CO2 is coming from the ocean
ThePooleMan:
I think it may be easier to just think in terms of mass, not volume. Total atmospheric mass, per square meter, is easily calculated from standard surface pressure. As a mass calculation, density, temperature, etc. become moot.
You can see more numbers on this page about the human contribution to atmospheric CO2. That the rise is due to anthropogenic releases can been seen on this web page.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:54 AM on 24 July 2024A major milestone: Global climate pollution may have just peaked
Joel:
The figure mentions OurWorldInData.org. They have a large collection of charts of CO2 and greenhouse gas information on this web page.
One of the charts (second row, right side, in the view I have) is for "Annual greenhouse gas emissions by world region". It looks like the total for that chart matches the values in the figure in this post, so I expect the figure here is using the same data (just not by region).
If you dig down into the information for that chart at OurWorldInData, it gives the following reference:
Jones, Matthew W., Glen P. Peters, Thomas Gasser, Robbie M. Andrew, Clemens Schwingshackl, Johannes Gütschow, Richard A. Houghton, Pierre Friedlingstein, Julia Pongratz, and Corinne Le Quéré. “National Contributions to Climate Change Due to Historical Emissions of Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide”. Scientific Data. Zenodo, March 19, 2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10839859.
That paper describes the data as "emissions CO2, CH4 and N2O from fossil and land use sources during 1851-2021."
If you follow the link to that paper, it then points to yet another paper that gives a more complete description: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02041-1. The abstract of that paper starts with:
Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have made significant contributions to global warming since the pre-industrial period and are therefore targeted in international climate policy.
From that information, it seems pretty clear that forest fires, peat, etc. are not included.
The figure here provides enough information that your question can be answered with a little effort tracking down sources.
-
Joel_Huberman at 03:59 AM on 24 July 2024A major milestone: Global climate pollution may have just peaked
Does the graph (and other data reported here) apply only to anthropogenic emissions or to total emissions? Total emissions would include all "natural" emissions, including CO2 due to forest fires and methane/CO2 from peat melting. Emissions like those I've mentioned seem likely to increase in the near future.
-
ThePooleMan at 23:05 PM on 23 July 2024CO2 is coming from the ocean
The "all CO2 comes from the ocean" myth is being commonly used this month and therefore that man cannot change the climate.
It seems obvious that burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere and so I set about calculating the volume of CO2 produced and comparing calculated ppm yearly increase to actual CO2 concentration change (around 2.5 ppm/year in 2024). Here is the approach:
35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
1 Kg of CO2 occupies 190L at standard pressure & temperature.
Earth radius is 6400 Km.
Volume of a sphere is 4/3 Pi r^3.
Assumed that CO2 is fully mixed.
Assume that effective atmosphere is no more than 10 Km. Obviously the atmosphere is higher but at 10Km the atmospheric pressure is 0.26 (see https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/international-standard-atmosphere-d_985.html)
I then calculate the volume of CO2 and divided by effective atmospehric volume* to work out CO2 ppm.
Using 10 Km then the calculated increase is 1.3 ppm.
Using 5 Km then the calculate increase is 2.6 ppm.
* By effective atmosperic volume I mean the height of the atmosphere if all the atmosphere was evenly compressed to 1 bar. I need to 'compress' atmosphere to 1 bar as I calculated CO2 volume at one bar.
Is there a better/published approach?
Pressure drops with altitude is not linear and I have not included temperature. So whilst perhaps Ok for a fag packet the approach is lacking some.
-
Cleanair27 at 04:25 AM on 23 July 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
As nigelj points out, the proper term is 'dismantle', not Heritage's humorously incompetent and unintentionally ironic use of 'deconstruct'. This calls to mind Jacques Derrida's post-modernist deconstruction project, hardly what Heritage would want to be associated with.
I don't entirely agree with nigelj's critique, rooted in standard welfare economics. There is no free market, and market failures are common and widespread, so different concepts are better for justifying regulation. For a different perspective on the history, troubles, and potential of the American administrative state, and why the Heritage wrecking ball is seriously foolish, consider this: The Fourth Branch
-
nigelj at 07:16 AM on 22 July 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
Regarding Project 2025 and its unfortunate attempts to dismantle the administrative state. Firstly I suggest we need to come back to some of the core problems we face as a society, and why this lead to the administrative state. And virtually all successful civilsations have an administrative state:
1) The capitalist free market is great at producing goods and services, but is not inherently good at providing adequate health and safety. This is known as a market failure in economics and well acknowledged by virtually all economists.
2) The failures of some leadership in all facets of society to act responsibly and helpfully towards people.
3) "The tragedy of the commons" is the concept which states that if many people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to overuse it and may end up destroying its value altogether. Even if some users exercised voluntary restraint, the other users would merely supplant them, the predictable result a tragedy for all." (Wikipedia definition)
Modern society has responded to these problems with various attempts at corrective mechanisms including , self regulation, and civil court action (lawsuits), government laws, regulations, and market orientated mechanisms like carbon taxes or cap and trade, and incentivising people not to pollute. These mechanisms and the related government agencies are the administrative state (excepting self regulation obviously).
Self regulation has a history of mostly not working, and the only real winners with lawsuits are lawyers. Government paying people not to pollute gets expensive but might ocassionally have its place (IMO). Because of this most civilisations have developed a set of government organisations, agencies, laws, regulations, cap and trade schemes and so on and these have been very effective when they have been strong enough.
Examples are the ozone hole was reduced using a cap and trade scheme to push alternative refrigerants. Air pollution has plumetted in various countries due to government laws and regulations witrh penalties. The growth in renewable energy has been due to the use of regulations, carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes and incentives (subsidies) depending on the country and which solution it has preferred. Some countries use a combination of solutions.
The proponents of project 2025 by dismanting the administrative state are putting all these gains at risk. They are apparently trying to return to hiding environmental problems, (for example by dismanting NOAA) and to bring back failed self regulation, or failed, very weak regulations, and costly reliance on lawsuits, and will no doubt try to weaken even that as well. As Einstein said "dont keep doing the same experiment and expecting different results".
Of course sometimes you can have too many regulations or bad regulations and governmnet agencies can get too powerful. There are simple ways to minimise this and America already does a decent job of this by its democratic government and its divisions of government power. What is unfortunate is a clumsy wrecking ball like project 2025, that destroys agencies, is slanted to benefit the big corporates and rich people, puts profit above all other considerations, and that clearly does not serve the wider public interest.
-
Dawei at 08:44 AM on 21 July 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #29 2024
This paper has been in the 'New Research' postings every single week for at least 17 weeks, why does it appear every week?
Long-term straw return to a wheat-maize system results in topsoil organic C saturation and increased yields while no stimulating or reducing yield-scaled N2O and NO emissions -
Bob Loblaw at 01:10 AM on 19 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Now, to address David-acct's comments (66 and 67) about the Chevron deference and expertise.
You start in comment 66 with "There is a gross misunderstanding..." and basically call it all politics. I dont' see the quotes you provide as supporting that argument. In the OP, you quoted the section I have also previously quoted, which says "...the agency’s interpretation if it is reasonable...", and claim that this is different from the actual wording of the decisions which states (your quote) "... unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." In my mind, "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute" would be, well, let me search for a word, unreasonable.
The OP gives this link to Cornell Law School's description of the Chevron deference. This is their description of the issue (emphasis added in bold):
The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine was when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question was not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. Rather, as Justice Stevens wrote in Chevron, when the statute was silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court was whether the agency’s action was based on a permissible construction of the statute.
First, the Chevron deference required that the administrative interpretation in question was issued by the agency charged with administering that statute. Accordingly, interpretations by agencies not in charge of the statute in question were not owed any judicial deference. Also, the implicit delegation of authority to an administrative agency to interpret a statute did not extend to the agency’s interpretation of its own jurisdiction under that statute.
Generally, to be accorded Chevron deference, the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute had to be permissible, which the Court has defined to mean “rational” or “reasonable.” In determining the reasonableness for the particular construction of a statute by the agency, the age of that administrative interpretation as well as the congressional action or inaction in response to that interpretation at issue would be a useful guide; if Congress were aware of the interpretation when it acted or refrained from action, and when the agency’s interpretation was not inconsistent with the clear statutory language.
In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of Chevron deference, holding that only the agency interpretations reached through formal proceedings with the force of law, such as adjudications, or notice-and-comment rulemaking, qualify for Chevron deference, while those contained in opinion letters, policy statements, agency manuals, or other formats that do not carry the force of law are not warranted a Chevron deference. In such cases, the Court may have given a slightly less deferential treatment to the agency’s interpretation, giving a persuasive value under the Court’s “Skidmore deference” analysis.
You (David-acct) call the Chevron deference "political", and unrelated to expertise. Yet the quotes you provide in comment 60 include the following (emphasis added):
- "..the decision involves reconciling conflicting policies..."
- "...thinking that those with great expertise and charged with responsibility for administering the provision would be in a better position to do so..."
- "...properly rely upon the incumbent administration's views of wise policy..."
- "...it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make such policy choices..."
- "...the competing interests which Congress itself either inadvertently did not resolve, or intentionally left to be resolved by the agency charged with the administration of the statute in light of everyday realities..."
I see "policy decisions". Although policies are established by the acts legislated by politicians, I do not see every policy decision as a political act. Your mileage may vary.
I will close with a comment on the last bit in the opinion footnotes you quoted: "the administration of the statute in light of everyday realities."
- If Congress is expected to provide definitive, unambiguous legislation that covers every possible case - anticipated or not - then you are asking Congress to micro-manage every single aspect of the actions of the executive branch.
- In such a work environment, no decision would be made unless someone can find a rule to guide them. No managers would ever be able to apply judgment or ethics in order to make a decision and take action in a timely fashion.
- This will choke the $#^ out of government - but then, for some people that is probably the desired outcome.
- In the real world, decent management requires an appropriate delegation of authority. Small decisions made at a distributed level, larger (more consequential) decisions made at higher levels of management, etc. We can argue about how well government (or private industry) does this, but the idea that it will all be resolved by getting the legislative branch to tell everyone exactly what to do is -pie-in-the-sky thinking.
The ultimate outcome of the latest ruling will require that we wait to see what effect it has on future court decisions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:23 AM on 19 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
David-acct @ 65:
You are completely missing my point. Of course, my point was made implicitly, not explicitly - and in sarcasm (part of my Brritish heritage when it comes to humour, in all probability).
My point is that your point of "You will almost always find much greater levels of expertise in industry than you find in government positions." paints a very incomplete picture. Good behaviour is not guaranteed by "greater levels of expertise". It also requires ethics.
I am quite sure that Bernie Madoff and Charles Ponzi had much greater expertise in the investment business than your average retail investment advisor. That does not mean that they would have been good people to get advice from when trying to develop, establish, or apply regulations for the investment industry. Because they lacked ethics.
Eclectic @ 68 has pointed out that your examples of industry expertise are narrow in scope. I also pointed that out in comment 60, but you have ignored that. You continue to make broad, sweeping claims of "almost always". Please try to broaden your view.
You seem fixated on "IRS agents". What is your definition of an "IRS agent"? What does their job description entail, and what training/academic background are they required to have? I could probably just as easily say "your average lawyer rarely has any true expertise in tax law". Are "IRS agents" the ones that advise government on developing tax law? Are they the ones that will testify in court to support an agency interpretation of a regulation?
If an "IRS agent" is a person that deals with public questions, in order to try to help them through difficult, hard-to-interpret tax regulations, then I can easily imagine that they are only trained to deal with the simpler situations. And that specialized tax lawyers know more. To generalize that to "employees in industry ... almost always have greater expertise than the government experts" is a huge stretch. You're making a comparison between the top end of "industry experts" and the bottom end of "IRS agents" and making a specious comparison.
-
Eclectic at 18:15 PM on 18 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
David-acct :
Your examples of industry expertise have been rather narrow in scope. I am fairly certain you could also adduce some contrary examples ~ particularly in the areas of the EPA and also worker safety areas (and public safety).
Horses for courses . . . but as a default position, the Chevron Deference is a commonsense starting position. Unfortunately, common sense gets short shrift when doctrinaire political animals insist on being guided by their ideology rather than by their intellect. (And "reasonable" goes out the window.
-
David-acct at 08:59 AM on 18 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
The except below is an example of my point regarding industry experts having significantly more real world expertise than so called government experts who often have limited practical experience.
"The final rule pushed by the biden administration would be upheld by the courts if following the Chevron doctrine. Yet actual industry experts point out the massive increase in the risk of grid failure.
"PJM manages the transmission of wholesale electricity across 13 states and the District of Columbia – including major data center hotspots such as Virginia and Ohio.
Meanwhile, a neighboring RTO, the Mid-Continent Independent System Operator (MISO) painted an even gloomier picture in its recent “Reliability Imperative Report.” MISO manages electric transmission across 15 states throughout most of the Midwest, Mississippi Valley, and Great Plains regions as well as the Province of Manitoba in Canada.
In their report, MISO forecasts a demand increase of 60 GW, or 32%, by 2042. At the same time, MISO expects much of their current baseload capacity to retire. And despite new renewable generation planned for construction, MISO expects to see a net capacity decline of 32 GW (@18%).
“Because new wind and solar resources have significantly lower accreditation values than the conventional resources that utilities and states plan to retire in the same 20-year period, the region’s level of accredited capacity is forecast to decline by 32 GW by 2042” MISO stated.
PJM expects 58 GW of current capacity to retire by 2032, which is approximately 30% of the total current capacity of 196 GW). This amount of capacity loss is despite peak forecasted demand increasing by 43 GW above current capacity."As noted above, Even though a shif to greater relience on renewable energy is good, policy, industry experts with real world experience have vastly greater expertise than most of the government experts.
-
David-acct at 08:55 AM on 18 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Bob at 60 -
there is a gross misunderstanding of Chevron deference and experts/expertise. Chevron deference has always been about the political preference, it was never about actual scientific expertise.
I realize the author of the OP is an administrative law expert, but his characterization of the chevron doctrine is incorrect and/or misleading.
His quote:
· Congress directs.
· In Step 2, however, if Congress is silent or unclear, then the court should defer to the agency’s interpretation if it is reasonable because agency staff is presumed to be experts on the issue."The Actual language from Stevens Opinion in Chevron. "Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute."
Stevens never actually used the term "experts" or "expertise" in the body of the Chevron opinion, though he made vague reference in the footnotes.
The Following are the two footnotes of the opinion
"In these cases, the Administrator's interpretation represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests and is entitled to deference: the regulatory scheme is technical and complex,39 the agency considered the matter in a detailed and reasoned fashion,40 and the decision involves reconciling conflicting policies.41 Congress intended to accommodate both interests, but did not do so itself on the level of specificity presented by these cases. Perhaps that body consciously desired the Administrator to strike the balance at this level, thinking that those with great expertise and charged with responsibility for administering the provision would be in a better position to do so; perhaps it simply did not consider the question at this level; and perhaps Congress was unable to forge a coalition on either side of the question, and those on each side decided to take their chances with the scheme devised by the agency. For judicial purposes, it matters not which of these things occurred."
65
"Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the Government. Courts must, in some cases, reconcile competing political interests, but not on the basis of the judges' personal policy preferences. In contrast, an agency to which Congress has delegated policy-making responsibilities may, within the limits of that delegation, properly rely upon the incumbent administration's views of wise policy to inform its judgments. While agencies are not directly accountable to the people, the Chief Executive is, and it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make such policy choices—resolving the competing interests which Congress itself either inadvertently did not resolve, or intentionally left to be resolved by the agency charged with the administration of the statute in light of everyday realities."As noted by the above citations, Chevron deference was always a political deference, not a deference to experts.
-
David-acct at 08:50 AM on 18 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Bob At 61 - You misinterpreted my point - The enron scandal was fraud, Its totally non relevant to my point which was the employees in industry who perform actual work in the field almost always have more expertise than the government experts. My experience with IRS agents bears that out. Very few IRS agents have any true expertise in tax law.
Secondly, reliance on experts was never the real issue in chevron. The issue in Chevron is who gets to decide what a statute is supposed to mean when the meaning of the words is unclear. The scientific expertise of the expert was never the real issue.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:00 AM on 18 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
My comments about the harmful learning/change resistant hard-liners (religious, racist, sexist, greedy rich, and more types) taking over the US right-wing, including the SC control evident in the Chevron deference judgement, is well summarized in this new NPR article:
RNC represents culmination of a decades-old movement in the Republican Party
The article also aligns with the understanding that ruining democracy and ending the related freedoms, particularly the freedom from unjust persecution, for caring thoughtful responsible people is often a slow process (I mentioned this was presented in the book “How Democracies Die” in my comment @62 and earlier comments). It also supports the understanding that the institution of the Republican Party failed to protect US democracy by allowing the hard-line social conservatives to taking over the party. And it presents the case that the take-over of the Republican Party was a significant source of the divisiveness in current day USA.
The following are a few quotes from the article:
They feared changing values around sex, civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights.
They believed the establishment was too moderate, too accommodating.
They dismissed the machinery of government and the media as controlled by a liberal elite.
They were known as “the New Right,” and 50 years ago they won a victory in the Republican Party.
It is the heirs of that political movement who have gathered at this year’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. As the party pushes to dramatically reshape government and roll back changing cultural mores, nominating a candidate who has disregarded fundamental elements of American democracy, it may feel like a sudden and extreme pivot in American politics. But this surge to the far-right stems from seeds planted a half-century ago.
...
1974: Kanawha County, West Virginia
... They were appalled by mentions of sex, inclusions of profanity, exploration of non-Christian creation myths, and readings from Malcolm X.
The protests grew violent. Bombs exploded at elementary schools (Horan later went to prison for his involvement). Snipers fired at school buses. The Ku Klux Klan joined a rally at the state capitol in Charleston.
Meanwhile, outside activists arrived to aid the protesters, as well. They came from a variety of mostly new organizations: the Conservative Caucus, Citizens for Decency Through Law, the Populist Forum, and one called the Heritage Foundation.The Heritage Foundation is undeniably the harmful buddying up of the fossil fuel interests with the social conservative interests (almost all in conflict with learning to b e less harmful and more helpful to others)
It is important to understand that the powerful fossil fuel interests had been significantly influencing US leadership judgment before the social conservatives pursued the capture (hostile take-over stuff) of the Republican Party in the 1970s. The harmful wealthy fossil fuellers willingly buddy up with harmful social conservatives because:
- It costs callous wealthy fossil fuellers very little to support the unreasonable misunderstanding-based leadership judgments and actions desired by the social conservatives.
- And the social conservatives are obviously happy to support any interest group that will support their interests no matter how unreasonable they are and how much misunderstanding is required to support them.
The union of unreasonable misunderstanding fuelled people have captured control of the SC for the foreseeable future (no mechanism to change the SC other than a SC justice ‘retiring’ when Democrats control the Senate and Presidency, or a SC justice being successfully impeached and convicted by the House and Senate).
Some final quotes from the NPR article:
1974: Boston, Massachusetts
A bottle shattered. Eggs splattered and rocks hammered against the window of a school bus filled with children. Parents had violently risen up against a plan to desegregate schools, which involved sending children sometimes across town by bus.
As riots engulfed the city, once again outside activists from a variety of new groups arrived to help the protesters.
The next year, 1975, featured a remarkable convergence. Hundreds of anti-busing protesters from Boston and anti-textbook protesters from West Virginia joined together in a march on Washington, D.C.
Two separate, regional uprisings against social change became one.
...
The outside groups who aided the protests, along with a host of others like them, would earn the moniker “the New Right.”
...
1976: North Carolina
It was embarrassing how badly Ronald Reagan was losing.
... Reagan pledged to transform the GOP, shift it rightward, into a “party of bold colors, no pale pastels.”
In other words, Reagan was the candidate of the New Right.
... He lost the first five primaries to Ford, in increasingly emphatic fashion. His top aides prepared to withdraw.
... Sen. Jesse Helms and his political strategist Tom Ellis, took charge of Reagan’s campaign in their state. They reshaped his message, emphasizing a nationalist appeal featuring the Panama Canal.
Reagan adopted a new slogan: “Make America Number One Again.”
...
This week, amid bipartisan calls to ratchet down political rhetoric after the assassination attempt against Trump, Republican delegates in Milwaukee approved the party’s latest platform. While it removes explicit opposition to abortion, the social backlash and apocalyptic rhetoric that decades ago typified the New Right infuses the document, from its call to “deport millions of illegal Migrants who Joe Biden has deliberately encouraged to invade our Country” to its focus on banning textbooks “pushing critical race theory.”
The New Right did not fully succeed 50 years ago when it sought to “organize discontent,” with “its eye on the presidency,” and the goal of taking “control of the culture.” But its values and heirs to its movement drive today’s Republican Party.And the New Right Republican Party also supports environmental and fossil fuel interests that conflict with learning to be less harmful and more helpful.
I recommend reading the full NPR article and the many other presentations of the long slow deliberate attack on democracy and its 'freedoms for all reasonable responsible people' by the collective of unreasonable hard-liners who win by promoting harmful misunderstanding to excuse unjust beliefs and related unjust judgments. They harmfully mislead because they can get away with it.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:18 AM on 17 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Another thought regarding the Chevron deference judgment.
Prior to this judgment by the SC, if any legislature-of-the-moment disliked the court's 'Chevron deference acceptance of actions of regulators as reasonable' then the legislature-of-the-moment could still try to update the legislation.
But the opportunity to get the SC-of-the-moment to unreasonably declare that the reasonable Chevron deference approach was 'null and void' is another significant harm done to the ability of governing institutions to reasonably limit harm done.
The SC, and all other institutions, need to be More Progressive = more interested in learning to limit harm done, help others, and make amends for harms done.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:36 AM on 17 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Bob Loblaw @61 provided great examples of ‘harmful industry accountant experts’ in response to David-acct.
I would add that Exxon leadership and its industry leadership fans, like the Kochs and Chevron, provided an example of harmfully compromised judgment in their response to the understanding of climate science that Exxon’s in-house experts had developed.
The hard-line groups vehemently opposed to learning to be less harmful (angrily opposed to learning and progress) have captured and control right-wing groups in the US and so many other places. They are loudly and proudly incorrect about many ‘understandable matters of judgment’ these days. And they resist learning that their beliefs are fuelled by harmful misunderstandings.
Even if the current ‘harmfully biased against learning to be less harmful’ SC had not had the opportunity to ‘unreasonably cancel/nullify the reasonable understanding of Chevron deference’ it appears that their judgments on similar matters would be aligned with ignoring the helpful reasonableness of Chevron deference.
Powerful people with interests that conflict with learning to be less harmful and more helpful have always been a problem. In order for humanity to collectively improve life for all humans now and into the future civil society needs to succeed in their helpful efforts to govern/limit the freedoms of harmful trouble-makers, especially limiting their freedom to benefit from the promotion of misunderstanding.
The Welsh government (the Senedd) may make a big progressive step by 2026. They promise to enact a law that penalizes elected representatives who knowingly promote misunderstandings. The following BBC article is one of many reports of this ‘global first – legally penalizing politicians for being misleading’:
Ban on Welsh politicians lying promised by 2026
It be great if SC justices could be reasonably banned from the SC if they are found to have passed judgments that conflict with learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others, including being misleading to try to mask the harmfulness of an unreasonable judgment by claiming that the unreasonableness is justified by ‘their’ selected interpretation of the wording of a law or the Constitution?
But the majority in the current SC would not even accept 'ethical limits to their freedoms'. So the limits on their freedom to be harmfully unreasonable would be almost impossible under the current Constitution. That is a clear massive-error in the Constitution that is almost impossible to correct. And there are likely many more 'almost impossible to correct' massive-errors and omissions in the Constitution.
As the authors of the book "How Democracies Die" explain, democracy often does not die in a rapid event. It often dies slowly from repeated successful attacks on its institutions. Those attacks compromise the ability of institutions to keep people who have interests that conflict with learning to be less harmful and more helpful from influencing leadership judgments.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:03 AM on 17 July 2024Can we air condition our way out of extreme heat?
With regard to the increased capacity issue, humidity is probably a larger factor as temperatures continue to rise. In addition to cooling the air, AC also removes water vapour. The dehumidification factor requires additional energy.
The humidity increase is not a linear function of temperature - it is an exponential increase. At the same relative humidity (the common measure in weather reports), each degree rise in temperature results in a great and greater increase in absolute humidity (the actual amount of water vapour in the air).
I remember about 15 years ago when a hospital in Regina (western Canada) had to shut down its operating rooms during a heat wave. Not because the AC couldn't handle the heat, but because the AC couldn't handle the extra humidity. The hot, humid interior meant that sterilizing the surgical tools was too difficult. Upgrading the AC systems cost them millions of dollars.
-
michael sweet at 02:42 AM on 17 July 2024Fact brief - Were scientists caught falsifying data in the hacked emails incident dubbed 'climategate'?
David-acct:
In any case, current data that is much, much more extensive than that used in Mann & MBH98 & MBH99 have validated the conclusions by Mann et al. Arguing that there is a problem about the Hocky-stick graphs is like arguing that the world is flat.
-
walschuler at 02:16 AM on 17 July 2024Can we air condition our way out of extreme heat?
I would add to this post two unfortunate feedback effects involved with air conditioning: first, in cities the heat rejected from air conditioned spaces raises the outdoor temperature, as the heat can't be rejected unless it flows out at a temperature higher than the air it is rejected to. Raising the outdoor temperature increases the energy required to achieve the next degree of cooling. In principle,this means that as time goes on air conditioning systems will have to be increased in capacity or indoor temperatures in air conditioned spaces will rise. Secondly, if the electricity driving the air conditioners is fossil fueled, and most still is, the supply of chilling adds CO2 to the atmosphere, adding to overall heat trapping and making that worse on a larger scale. Converting to renewably sourced electricity is essential and will help deal with the second feedback but not the first. Energy conservation and other measures are needed to fix this.
-
michael sweet at 01:36 AM on 17 July 2024Fact brief - Were scientists caught falsifying data in the hacked emails incident dubbed 'climategate'?
David Acct:
The OP points out that "climate-gate" was invegestated by 9 separate imvestigations. All of them found that there was no misconduct. Your factoid that one of the investigations did not relate to Mann & MBH98 & MBH99 is simply off-topic since the OP is about climate-gate emails and not the Mann papers. Please try to stay on topic with your posts.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:23 PM on 16 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
As far as David-acct's claim that industry accountants are better than government accountants, I can imagine that this is quite possibly true. I think the accountants at Enron and Arthur Andersen were probably a lot brighter that the IRA accountants. At least, they were a lot more creative. Glad that worked out so well for everyone.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:18 PM on 16 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
David-acct @ 58:
Well, I think you are over-generalizing, and I will make two points in response to your two points.
On the constitutional aspects:
The Chevron deference is not about agencies making new law - it is about interpreting existing law when the law is vague. Read the OP: the decision process (in court) had two steps (emphasis added):
- In Step 1, the court asks whether Congress directly addressed the issue in the statute. If so, then both the court and the agency have to do what Congress directs.
- In Step 2, however, if Congress is silent or unclear, then the court should defer to the agency’s interpretation if it is reasonable because agency staff is presumed to be experts on the issue.
The agencies do not get to ignore Congress. The discussion in the comments points out the risks and problems associated with waiting for Congress to act on every tiny detail that is unclear in existing legislation.
On the subject of experts:
Your "almost always" claim that government experts are worse than industry experts is condescending twaddle. This may come as a surprise, but the "A" in "EPA" is not "Accounting". Your narrow experience in one specialty does not necessarily extend to all disciplines.
In areas of science, such as climate, water quality, atmospheric pollution, etc., government research groups are often at the cutting edge of the discipline. And the research component within government is usually strongly tied to the monitoring and regulatory components. In the case of such areas of expertise, the "real world experience" involves going out into the field and actually observing the natural environment and how humans interact with it. Government monitoring and research agencies do this in spades.
I have worked in industry, academia, and government. In industry, the "expertise" is often brought into play through the use of consultants. As OPOF points out, "The problem with industry 'experts' can be that they are expert at hiding evidence, failing to investigate potential harms, and making up misleading statements because they have interests that conflict..."
- I once worked for an individual that was supposed to be an expert in permafrost engineering. He had developed a computer model to calculate soil/ground temperatures. In a meeting with a prospective client, he was asked "will the model handle the difference between south-facing and north-facing slopes?". He confidently answered "Yes, it can."
- After the meeting, he said (in private) "what difference does it make? South-facing or north-facing?" In spite of his supposed "expertise", he was completely unaware that south-facing slopes receive more sunlight than north-facing slopes (in the northern hemisphere). This leads to warmer surface temperatures (and thus, warmer soil). This carries through to lower likelihood of permafrost on south-facing slopes, and higher tree-line in mountainous areas.
- In other words, south- or north-facing is very important. And this industry "expert" was clueless.
- ...and this industry "expert" was quite willing to lie to a prospective client about what his model could do, just to get the contract.
Once things get to court, it is often a "battle of the experts". The government side will rely on its experts. The industry side will rely on its experts. The Chevron deference does not allow the agency to make unreasonable interpretations - it just sets a priority of trust.
If courts end up shifting to "we'll wait for Congress to act" every time something is unclear, then agencies will be unable to proactively deal with anything. We'll shift to a purely reactive management style - closing the door after the horses have escaped.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:36 PM on 16 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
David-acct @58,
The problem with industry 'experts' can be that they are expert at hiding evidence, failing to investigate potential harms, and making up misleading statements because they have interests that conflict with helping others learn to be less harmful and more helpful.
And the over-ruling of Chevron deference can be understood to be an unreasonable judgment for the reasons presented in many comments.
What you have said appears to ignore or deny the reality of the ways that pursuits of reward and status are known, more so now than when the Constitution was written, to create 'interests' that conflict with learning to improve a social system and correct its potentially unsustainable and harmful developments.
You also appear to believe that if it isn't explicitly 'conclusively provable to be against the current laws' it is totally OK. If that were true there would be no need for any new laws. That ignores or denies the reality of the many ways that competition for reward and status results in people doing things that are understandably unacceptable, but claiming it isn't able to be proven to be against the currently written laws (as they interpret them) so they can do as they please.
You should read Daniel Kahneman's book "Noise" that I refer to in my comment @48. The book includes extensive points about the potential problems of attempting to get improved, less biased and less noisy, judgments through rigid wording rather than clear guidelines open to improvement via input from helpful experts, skeptically questioning the input to be sure there is no conflicting interest influence.
-
David-acct at 10:55 AM on 16 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
I am going to make two points
US Constitution
Under the US Constitution, the legislative branch (article 1) makes the law, and the executive branch (article 2) enforces the law. It is not the place of executive branch agencies to make law. The chevron decision allowed government agencies to make law. The overruling of chevron only places the making of law back to its proper place - Congress
Experts
Several commentators have made comments about the experts many of which show misconceptions about who are actual experts.
You will almost always find much greater levels of expertise in industry than you find in government positions. I happen to be a CPA with an expertise in federal and state taxation. fwiw, the average CPA has vastly greater accounting and tax expertise the most any IRS agent. The point being is dont over rate experts who dont have any real world experience.
-
David-acct at 09:03 AM on 16 July 2024Fact brief - Were scientists caught falsifying data in the hacked emails incident dubbed 'climategate'?
Since the article discusses the climate gate investigations, its worth pointing out one of the major misconceptions of the investigations which was the investigation of M Mann by the NSF. Its investigation was limited to misconduct as defined in the NSF Research Misconduct Policy, which concerns only “fabrication, falsification and plagiarism … in research funded by NSF.” It stated that Mann “did not directly receive NSF research funding as a Principal Investigator until late 2001 or 2002.” Because the MBH98 & MBH99 falsification allegations pre-dated 2001, the NSF had no jurisdiction over these allegations. In summary, Mann's HS was not investigated by the NSF. Unfortunately, many advocates falsely have been led to believe that Mann & MBH98 & MBH99 were investigated by the NSF.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:08 AM on 16 July 2024How rural families are saving thousands with electric vehicles
There is an error in the Yale Climate connections item:
In the section headed by: Why rural Americans are uniquely positioned to benefit from EVs, the following statement is made:
And rural “superusers” who make up just 3.6% of the U.S. population consume around 1,950 gallons of gas annually, or nearly 13% of total gas consumption — much more than the entire gasoline use of Russia, India, Japan, or Canada, according to Rural Climate Partnership analysis.
The Rural Climate Partnership item that is linked to by the Yale Climate Connections item actually states the following:
Top rural drivers, representing just 3.6% of all US drivers, consume 12.5 billion gallons of gasoline — which is nearly as much or more gas than the entire gasoline use of Russia, India, Japan, or Canada.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:54 AM on 16 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Correction of my comment @56,
It should have been: BTW, regarding the following quote from TWFA @52,...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:23 AM on 16 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
TWFA,
It is important to not be governed by interests that conflict with learning to be a more helpful and less harmful member of humanity. Note that current time period societies, like political party tribes in a nation, are sub-sets of global humanity including all future generations.I recommend seriously considering the points I shared from Kahneman’s book “Noise”. Also, consider reading the entire book as well as his earlier book “Thinking Fast and Slow”. Otherwise a person is likely to produce nonsense noise on matters because of biases keeping them from thoughtful slow consideration and learning.
I also recommend reading “How Democracies Die” by Levitski and Ziblatt. They explain how institutions are important to democracy. But institutions need to be protected from corruption by harmful interests.
Sustaining and improving the responsible and reasonable freedoms of all members of a society (what democracy aspires to achieve) requires responsible reasonable civil society members to effectively govern what happens to protect the institutions of the democracy from being captured and controlled, or being significantly influenced, by interests that conflict with learning to be less harmful and more helpful.
The actions of the US SC regarding Chevron deference are just one of many examples of how the SC institution has been captured and controlled by interests that conflict with maintaining and improving democracy in the US. And that capture and control of the SC is the result of the US Republican Party failing to keep itself from being captured and controlled by harmful interests that conflict with learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. And the US Democratic Party has also failed by allowing its leadership actions to be significant influenced by harmful interests in conflict with learning to be less harmful and more helpful.
To be more pointed regarding climate change impacts, the harmful fossil fuel interests try to influence and control whatever political players are required to achieve their harmful interests (Tea Party, Joe Manchin...). They can be expected to take maximum advantage of the new SC decision regarding Chevron deference.
So the reality is that the ‘SC institutional leg of the US democracy stool’ has been harmful captured by interests in conflict with maintaining and improving US ‘Democracy for all’. The SC was significantly compromised before. But now the SC is significantly controlled by bias against learning to be less harmful and more helpful. What institution(s) can counter and limit the harms done by decisions made by such a biased SC?
BTW, regarding the following quote from TWFA @42,
for example a Clean Air Act of 1850 to control draft animal farts is applied to CO 60 years later, whether the regulators should have the power to decide on their own
Methane (CH4) from livestock is the concern (not CO). Also, the methane is in the burps, not farts, from animals like cows. Work animals commonly referred to as ‘draft animals’, like horses, do not digest their food in the same way as livestock. So, draft animals are not likely to be a methane generation problem. And a ‘general rule limiting sources of methane from human caused activity’ would not require legislators to spend time updating a detailed list of problematic methane sources that get identified by ‘experts in the matter’ (note that people wanting to benefit from harmful methane releases are unlikely to inform legislators of the harms their interests produce). And a ‘non-corrupted SC’ would be an effective check and balance institution to ensure that how the regulators identified and restricted harmful methane releases were reasonable.
-
Eclectic at 01:49 AM on 16 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Thank you for the entertainment, TWFA @52.
Your mention of "draft animal farts" and the production of CO gas . . . is a [typo?] of Justice Gorsuch-ian expertise. Asphyxiatingly funny ~ if you really meant CO2 gas.
I shall abstain from a pun about horses, mules, asses, and "asphyxiation". Also, TWFA, don't risk confusing H2S and H2O.
Moderator Response:[PS] Dial it back. This is not constructive commentary.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:05 PM on 15 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
TWFA @ 52:
Of course, you are right that you have no obligation to answer questions posed to you. You also have no obligation to support any of the assertions you make. You have no obligation to provide a consistent position, nor any obligation to clarify unclear statements that you make. You have no obligation to connect your opinions to reality, or base them on any observable phenomena. You have no obligation to change your opinions when others point out the errors in your logic, or provide information that contradicts your opinions.
And nobody else has any obligation to think that you have any constructive contribution to the discussion. Nobody else has any obligation to think that you really understand any of this, or that you have really given this any sort of comprehensive thought. Nobody else has any obligation to respect anything you say.
...and you finish with "it's about who has the final say over the regulators if their mandate is unclear", in spite of the fact that after many comments, you still won't actually explain who has "the final say" (clue: even with the Chevron deference, the courts always had the option to decide that the regulatory agency position was not reasonable) and you still won't say who you think should be regulating the regulators, and how that would work differently from the experts in the agencies in question.
In other words, you are unwilling to explain or defend your position or elaborate on your opinion. You just keep re-asserting it, as if repetition is some form of discussion. But I knew that would be the case. It has been your MO since you started commenting here.
-
scaddenp at 14:42 PM on 15 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Monitoring compliance with road rules is a bit different from monitoring of profit-making business for compliance with industry regulation. Industry levies or fees are how that is normally done here. Traffic speed enforcement is widely believed to be "self-funding".
-
TWFA at 14:15 PM on 15 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Actually Bob, don't hold your breath, this is not an inquisition, I owe no answers or fealty to you, and I don't fall for false "all or nothing" choices here or in life in general, such as that we either have taxpayer funded monitors or there would be none at all, or that if left unregulated all corporations and "most other people", or at least those who do not think as you do, are selfish, ignorant and bent upon self destruction, we were not Haiti or Nigeria prior to the growth of the regulatory state.
We have taxpayer funded state police who monitor drivers for speeding, we don't require drivers to pay the salary of an officer sitting in the right seat, on the other hand we do have taxpayer funded "monitors" in orders of magnitude greater numbers per active airliner flight deck... both ultimately the result of the collective outome desired by the people, and with the third leg of the stool restored now a bit less subject to the will of the regulators or the government, and a bit more to the people, and that is good, in my opinion, because I believe the mojority of my fellow citizens ARE civilized and of good will.
All of this bruhaha gets far from the original point... that if Congress is incomplete or unclear about something guiding legislation, or if times change, for example a Clean Air Act of 1850 to control draft animal farts is applied to CO 60 years later, whether the regulators should have the power to decide on their own, it is not about more or less regulation, or tyranny vs anarchy, it's about who has the final say over the regulators if their mandate is unclear.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:26 AM on 15 July 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
The following NPR article exposes an example of blatant promotion of misunderstanding:
Biden faces criticism over his gas car ban. But he doesn’t have one.
The following quote from the article includes a quote from the promoters
The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a trade group with major fossil fuel members, announced multimillion ad buys this year spotlighting state and federal policies for new car production. The ads urge viewers in the key presidential and Senate swing states of Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, Ohio and Texas to oppose Biden-era rules that improve fuel economy. AFPM’s ads claim, without evidence, that the rules ban gas vehicles.
“We're not coming in in support of a candidate or an opposition of a candidate,” said Chet Thompson, AFPM President. “This is about informing people that this is happening and where they can go to get more information and to weigh in.”
So they claim to not be political campaign marketing ... because they want all candidates to fear upsetting them (they may have been part of the group of misleading promoters who made Joe Manchin, a Democrat, so fearful he would vote like a New Age fearful Republican on fossil fuel matters).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:46 AM on 15 July 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
The Story of the Week’s focus is well summarized as:
We believe this is helpful background information for making fully joined-up decisions in an important election year. After all, in general it's best to choose leaders who reliably can see and employ crisp facts rather than spout useless ideology when administering our affairs.
Since ‘decision making’ is ‘making judgments’ the following are relevant quotes from Daniel Kahneman’s (an expert on the matter of human judgment) recent book “Noise – A Flaw in Human Judgment” (with Oliver Sibony and Cass R. Sunstein).
Quote from Chapter 18 with my additions in ( )
Judgments are less noisy and less biased when those who make them are well trained (in the subject matter of the judgment), are more intelligent (have fundamentally high levels of cognitive ability), and have the right cognitive style (are passionate about learning). In other words: good judgments depend on what you know, how well you think, and how you think (italics by the authors). Good judges tend to be experienced and smart, but they also tend to be actively open-minded and willing to learn from new information (new evidence and reasoning).
Quote from Chapter 4 about Matters of Judgment
...A matter of judgment is one with some uncertainty about the answer and where we allow for the possibility that reasonable and competent people might disagree.
But there is a limit to how much disagreement is admissible. Indeed, the word judgment is used mainly where people believe they should agree. Matters of judgment differ from matters of opinion or taste, in which unresolved differences are entirely acceptable.Based on that ‘hard to argue against understanding’ it is important for everyone who cares to be a reasonable responsible member of society to be interested in learning from experts to be less harmful and more helpful to others, appreciate that on many matters there are strict limits on diversity of acceptable judgments (no misunderstanding), and vote according to that constantly improving understanding.
An example of diversity of options within the constraints of pursuing being less harmful and more helpful is structure design and construction (and related design codes). There are a diversity of materials, structural systems, and methods of construction that can meet a high level of safety and reliability requirements.
All political groups could also have unique approaches ad corresponding judgments while adhering to the governing objective of constantly learning to be less harmful and more helpful.
Important Note: Restricting a person’s ability to promote misunderstanding or limiting their ability to benefit more from more harmful actions is not ‘harming them’.
-
scaddenp at 07:15 AM on 15 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
In NZ, fishermen having to pay for observers has been a sore point with fishermen too, but franky they brought in on their own heads. Previous to this regime, the fishermen were allowed "self-regulation" and self-reporting on things like bycatch, sealions killed etc. When observers were trialled (at taxpayer expense), it was instantly obviously that the industry was cheating on a massive scale. A wild fishery is a common, and free-for-all exploitation is not a right. Overall, the fishing industry does want a sustainable fishery; the public do want critically-endangered species protected. The problem is that short-term profit is not served by either. If you want to make money on an enterprise, then it befalls on you to accept the costs that allow such an enterprise to happen in a way acceptable to society. The same applies to say diary farmers who do not have some imaginary right to destroy waterways for other users, nor to miners to offload costs of restoration and pollution onto taxpayers. if your business plan calls for below-minimum wages and/or ignoring worker safety, then you dont actually have a business plan.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:58 AM on 15 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
OPOF brings up a point I had also thought of - but not expressed - earlier. The Chevron decision had centered on the question of [quoting the OP] "whether the U.S. secretary of commerce could require commercial fishers to pay for onboard observers they were required to bring on some fishing voyages to collect catch data."
As OPOF points out, if the fishers don't cover the costs, then all taxpayers cover the costs. TWFA was arguing that it is unfair for the fishers to have to pay for a regulatory system they did not set up (see his comment 3). I'm not sure what sort of solution TWFA would propose:
- All taxpayers cover the costs - in which case people who had no involvement in creating the regulations, no involvement in the fishing industry, and perhaps live half way across the country are being unfairly asked to pay? This would be more unfair than asking the fishing industry to pay, methinks.
- Have no observers - so the data isn't collected and the regulation of the industry can't function?
- ...or, as has been suggested more than once by TWFA, we need someone to "regulate the regulators", so we have additional observers on board the ships to watch over the observers - at additional cost
I'll probably see clarification from TWFA on his position about the same time I see him answering the questions I raised in comment 23.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:02 AM on 15 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Regarding the following quote from TWFA @3,
Not only that, you had no recourse when their regulations were written and enforced, theirs was the word of God and the courts and the people had no say other than public commentary for 30 days or whatever, typically ignored as the train has long left the station.
I totally agree regarding anyone, especially an 'expert judge of a matter', declaring that their interpretation of something written is 'unchangeable. The Republican appointed members of the SC include people, particularly Justice Barrett, who believe they can 'like a god' accurately establish a rigid 'correct' interpretation of the US Constitution's wording.
It is scarier that groups have been successful at pushing for the election of representatives who would 'properly' interpret religious wording (written long ago by men - no women involved back then - claiming it is the word of god) and make that 'firm belief' govern over other considerations that are actually based on improved understanding that are still open to improvement.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:21 AM on 15 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
I will limit my comment to ‘the SC judgment regarding Chevron deference’ and ‘related applicable understanding regarding judgments’.
TWFA’s @1 prompted me to consider making a response. I thoughtfully and reasonably revisited Daniel Kahneman’s (an expert on the matter of human judgment) recent book “Noise – A Flaw in Human Judgment” (with Oliver Sibony and Cass R. Sunstein). Kahnemans’s earlier book “Thinking Fast and Slow” is also relevant as it points out the flaws of System 1 ‘gut reaction, impulsive, instinctive (mediocre)’ decision making vs. the better System 2 slower process of thoughtful thinking).
I have been following this discussion while working on developing a hopefully helpful contribution. Hopefully everyone is passionate about he pursuit of learning to make better judgments, with the understood objective being limiting harm done and helping those who needs assistance to live decent lives, including assistance with learning to be less harmful and more helpful.
Regarding the SC ruling on Chevron deference
Good governing judgment would have the people wanting to benefit from an activity that needs to be restricted to be sustainable and limit harm done (avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons result from too much freedom) pay for reasonable required monitoring of the activity. The alternative is ‘increasing taxation on everyone else’ to monitor the activity which is understandably less desirable (except for people wanting to benefit in less sustainable and more harmful ways desiring the avoidance of costs or other restrictions). If the legislators who wanted monitoring of the fishing operators had not wanted the monitored operations to pay for the monitoring they would have included a budget line item for the costs of monitoring. A lack of such a provision would lead a reasonable judge to decide that the legislators intent was to have the operators, and ultimately the consumers, pay for the monitoring. The ‘majority decision’ based on a simplistic interpretation of the written law can reasonably be judged to be an ‘Unreasonable and unjustly biased Judgment’.
It is a tragedy for the future of humanity that humans can be easily impressed by bad judgments based on misunderstanding things, especially when they are competing for personal benefit and status relative to others. Poorly governed (inadequately limited – too much freedom) systems like capitalism tragically amplify the problem of popular misunderstanding, especially if there is freedom to promote misunderstanding to fool people and excuse understandably unacceptable beliefs and actions.
A major problem, affecting more systems than capitalism, is the desires some humans will develop to evade the understandable objective of a written rule by strictly interpreting it as they wish and ignoring a rule they dislike (the rule breakers vs abiders of rules). That makes the making of written rules less effective than the constantly improved presentation of the objectives (based on learning from experts) that are to be thoughtfully used to evaluate what is being done.
Related relevant points from Daniel Kahneman’s book “Noise”.
Quote from Chapter 18 with my additions in ( )
Judgments are less noisy and less biased when those who make them are well trained (in the subject matter of the judgment), are more intelligent (have fundamentally high levels of cognitive ability), and have the right cognitive style (are passionate about learning). In other words: good judgments depend on what you know, how well you think, and how you think (italics by the authors). Good judges tend to be experienced and smart, but they also tend to be actively open-minded and willing to learn from new information (new evidence and reasoning).
Quote from Chapter 4 about Matters of Judgment
...A matter of judgment is one with some uncertainty about the answer and where we allow for the possibility that reasonable and competent people might disagree.
But there is a limit to how much disagreement is admissible. Indeed, the word judgment is used mainly where people believe they should agree. Matters of judgment differ from matters of opinion or taste, in which unresolved differences are entirely acceptable.”If there are different resulting judgments it is expected that differing ‘good judges’ would learn through collective interaction and reduce the ‘noise’ in the collective judgment group. Bias would restrict the ability of the judges to reduce the noise. It only takes one judge being unreasonably (ideologically) biased to maintain (and potentially amplify) the noisiness, degree of variation among the differing judgments. And all the judges being ‘biased the same way’ would result in Bad Judgment without the appearance of noise (Authoritarian groups think this way).
Other thoughts
I would add that an essential governing criteria for good judgments is that the open-minded learning of ‘good judges’ be focused on being less harmful and more helpful to others.
A last note: Believing that actual experts make poorer and more harmful judgments than the less informed and potentially seriously biased representatives collectively elected by ‘mediocre citizens’ is Absurd no matter how popular or common that non-sensible unreasonable belief is.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:10 AM on 14 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Indeed. In fact, they are the same planes. Because of strict regulatory requirements on their maintenance, and good sturdy designs to start with, airplanes are very long lived machines. If you look up the tail numbers of the planes you flew, there is a pretty good chance you will see them still in service somehwere.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:03 AM on 14 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Sorry, Phillippe. Yes, I should have made it clearer in my comments 38/39 that you were summarizing TWFA's position, not expressing your own, when you wrote "Actor 2 should be punished". I think TWFA's irony meter is broken, though.
"Blaming the regulator" when a regulated bad actor acts bad is not surprising. The "cut red tape" crowd frequently seem to argue "still too much red tape" when cutting red tape for private industry leads to Bad Things™. In my government experience, the politicians that are keen on cutting red tape for private industry also show little interest in cutting red tape within government itself. Instead, they put up more roadblocks and audits and processes that make things even less efficient. No price is too high when it comes to making sure that $100 was spent wisely!
Your inside information on FAA processes is interesting, My PIC time is limited to Cessna 150/152 and Cessna 172 aircraft - although I also managed to get a very small amount of (uncredited) stick time on a Bell 47 one summer. It sounds like the low-end airplanes are not much different from the last time I was in one over 40 years ago.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:55 AM on 14 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Bob at 39,
Yes, although in all fairness punishing the regulator was TWFA's idea. What is supremely ironic is why they would get punished: doing exactly what libertarians advocate, i.e. lightening a government agency's role, oversight, regulating power, etc. Of course, when such steps lead to failure, then the regulator is blamed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I have been a pilot and flight instructor for close to 30 years. I have dealt with the FAA on a regular basis, for operations under part 141(approved pilot schools) and part 135 (on demand transportation). I have not dealt with them in part 121 operations (scheduled service, i.e. airlines). Overall, I have found inspectors to be competent and reasonable people, always ready to be accommodating when they see that they are dealing with honest and sincere aviators or mechanics. On some occasions, their decisions are puzzling (see the Trent Palmer case), but most of the time they are simply consistent with their role. They are very sensitive about some areas, one being air transportation of any kind offered for compensation. Just like I would not want to be in the shoes of a police officer in most situations they face, I do not envy the role of the FAA.
About airplane technology having advanced far more than automobile over the past century, I would say yes and no. The immense majority of GA light airplane's engines are still running on magnetos. Fuel injection is not electronically controlled and mixture control is manually accomplished. Automobiles have used electronic ignition and injection for decades and their engines nowadays are in fact extremely reliable and efficient. Continental and Lycoming have this market pretty much covered. They do have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Lycoming recently had drop in replacement electronic ignition units approved for certified engines. Rotax is making progress in the certified aircraft market. Perhaps it will help evolution, but they are confined to smaller planes. In the large piston engine segment, things are still stuck in the past. Compression engines (diesel) offer potential but retrofit are prohibitively expensive and their power to weight ratio is not as good as 100 Low Lead ICEs. Nonetheless, diesel presents the huge advantage of running on Jet-A and hopefully SAFs.
More sophisticated GA planes tend to be turbine powered. In that area, the P&W PT-6 is king, numbering more powerplants than all others combined. Although it has evolved, it is still fundamentally a late 50s early 60s design. The improvements have been realized in other areas: some aerodynamic, lots of electronics, electronic engine management, and of course GPS based electronic navigation and flight management systems.
-
nigelj at 05:54 AM on 14 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
TWFA @35. Your analysis of the regulation of pilots versus car drivers looks ok as far as it went. There are probably additional reasons pilots are so strictly regulated, tested and evaluated and more so than car drivers. Its just practical and cost efficient. Far smaller numbers of pilots than car drivers. Aircraft are used for trade in goods (often critically important goods) as well as transporting people so you just dont want aircraft falling out of the sky on a frequent basis. An aircraft crash can cause huge damage if it hits a city. Imagine if one hit a nuclear power plant.
If we made car drivers all go through the same level of testing the costs would become onerous and they would rebel. Low income people would not be able to drive. Then you need complicated subsidies for them. And would additional car driver training achieve much anyway? The problem with bad can drivers looks like an attitude thing where they dont pay attention and they take risks. You can identify and fire pilots who do that easily enough. Good luck trying to properly evaluate millions of car drivers for attitude. Its just not very practical to do and it would make it impossible for many millions of people to drive.
My point is the regulatory system ultimately reflects multiple factors and comes down to whats practical, and the extra level of regulation training and scrutiny of pilots does make sense. Having said this I do worry about the bad standard of peoples car driving and we should always look to how we can improve this in practical ways.
Coming back to some other points. Despite the USA being highly regulated, based on your statement about tens of thousands of pages of regulations, it hasn't stopped them being one of the most innovative, wealthy countries on the planet. There is a good argument that a strong regulatory framework has caused much of this innovation, by forcing companies to innovate meet the regulations. Plenty of studies on this if you google the issue.
The people that fight regulations seem to be a noisy minority with vested interests. Bob Loblows and others concerns about regulatory capture are very valid and its astounding something isn't done to stop this. Of course theres a possibility of a bureaucratic governmnet organisation over regulating, but there are checks and balances because politicians have to decide whether a regulation is passed into law, and the public can vote in what politicians they want.
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:05 AM on 14 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
TWFA @ 41:
Once again, you underestimate the ability of a small well-funded and vocal minority to enage in regulatory capture, against the wishes of the majority.
In Canada, seat belt usage (as far as I remember) is much higher in jurisdictions with regulation, compared to other countries that don’t make it the law. Compliance? Persuasion? Hard to tell.
And you contradict yourself again. On the one hand, you argue that things should only happen if the majority want it. On the other hand, you argue that the majority should not rule over the minority. "Enough people to clog the streets of Ottawa.." represented a very small minority trying to force their views on the majority. Heck, some of them even wanted the Governor General to remove the duly-elected Prime Minister and government, and replace them with a hand-picked group of extremists. Talk about "democracy".
It seems that you want majority rule when the majority agrees with you, and you want "freedom" when the majority does not agree with you. Rule by TWFA.
"...they would have the option of electing representatives..." is clearly not true in large regions of the United States. The districts are so gerrymandered, and the population so unwilling to consider voting for "the other party", that many, many seats are guaranteed wins for one party or the other. Voters that can't see past party devotion are not choosing on the basis of policy or principle. The only place any choice is exercised is at the party nomination stage, which is very expensive and often hijacked by rich special-interest groups. North Carolina has managed to get something like 60% of the seats with 40% of the vote. Majority rules, my @$$.
But to get back to the OP, and the role of experts, when am I going to see answers to my questions in comment 23?
-
Eclectic at 02:53 AM on 14 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Bob Loblaw @40 :
Yes, definitely a SNAFU at the SCOTUS level.
Are you paying attention to reality, TWFA ? Your own desires for a truly effective legal system would require the SCOTUS to be expanded to 100 Justices (or more) combined with a staff of 1,000 - 2,000 Law Clerk assistants . . . plus a similar number of scientific/technical assistants [are we allowed to call them "experts" ? ] .
And that's just at the SCOTUS level. Lower-level Federal Courts would require a comparable massive amount of support staff. And then there's the State level.
By Golly, TWFA . . . it may be dawning on you (when you trouble to think it through) that the Chevron Deference is a very sensible policy. And saves the tax-payer a bigly-yuge lot of money. As well as saving everyone a bigly-yuge amount of time. By a lot [to quote an eminent politician] .
Come along, TWFA. Get your act together. You've presented a great jumble of confused & self-contradictory arguments . . . which are indeed entertaining . . . but only entertaining in the sense of a batsman who entertains the crowd by continually striking himself in the face, rather than striking the ball.
Please, TWFA . . . Be Better (if I may misquote the current wife of the same eminent politician).
[ Or are you really hoping (@41) for a tyranny by a Libertarian minority . . . plus simultaneously by a Totalitarian minority ? ]
-
TWFA at 01:36 AM on 14 July 2024What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their goals
Bob,
"And how do you know that this is the majority opinion of the public?"
I know just as certainly as I do not know, but apparently it is, otherwise we would have more regulations and the public would be willing to comply with them. I would hope that if a majority of Canadians said "We demand seat belt compliance" or "We don't need no stinking seat belts" they would have the option of electing representatives to pass laws to enact or repeal such regulations in accordance with the collective will and judgement of the people they SERVE... you don't agree?
People get the government and governance they deserve, if one group of provinces wishes to have power over another they need to make the case beyond "Majority rules!", tyranny of a majority is just as damaging to the social order as tyranny of a minority operating through the power and instrumentality of government. At some point when enough people can't fight city hall they bring torches and burn it down, or clog the streets of Ottawa with trucks...
Canadian Harmony
