Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
now do trumpsters who refuse to go to "shithole, crime riddled, democrat controlled cities". which is false, to boot.
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
I have heard that about those states up in that area. I was in Iowa a few years back and it happened to be Chadwicks area he lived in. He wrote me a DM and said "dud, how the hell did you manage to be out my way!?!" We chuckled about that.
But I never saw that, nor was I looking for it, in Iowa.
I'm a fan of western PA. 4 seasons, hills and waterways.
Did you get to meet Chadwick? I sure would have loved to.
Western NY, oh yeah, for sure! I lived in the Dunkirk/Fredonia area for two years. The seasons, the Concord grape vineyards and apple orchards, lake Erie, the rolling hills- I loved it out there!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
I could support a Democratic Socialist New Deal, for sure!
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
Yes!
Yang never had a chance to become president and I sometimes sort of regret some of the money I donated for his campaign, but on the other hand, if it helped get his message out about some of the ideas he has, maybe it wasn't such a bad investment after all!
The renewable jobs are there for the taking in coal country, if they want to build that industry. I’m sure Brandon would open the checkbook to make it happen. Alas, they’d rather torch the planet
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
I could support a Democratic Socialist New Deal, for sure!
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
Yes!
Yang never had a chance to become president and I sometimes sort of regret some of the money I donated for his campaign, but on the other hand, if it helped get his message out about some of the ideas he has, maybe it wasn't such a bad investment after all!
The renewable jobs are there for the taking in coal country, if they want to build that industry. I’m sure Brandon would open the checkbook to make it happen. Alas, they’d rather torch the planet
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
After years and years of calling the libs criminals, owning the libs, hating the libs, intimidating the libs with yer guns and killing our babies with yer assault weapons, let’s just pretend it’s all just a different viewpoint.
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
I have heard that about those states up in that area. I was in Iowa a few years back and it happened to be Chadwicks area he lived in. He wrote me a DM and said "dud, how the hell did you manage to be out my way!?!" We chuckled about that.
But I never saw that, nor was I looking for it, in Iowa.
I'm a fan of western PA. 4 seasons, hills and waterways.
Did you get to meet Chadwick? I sure would have loved to.
Western NY, oh yeah, for sure! I lived in the Dunkirk/Fredonia area for two years. The seasons, the Concord grape vineyards and apple orchards, lake Erie, the rolling hills- I loved it out there!
Never met Chadwick. I was gone by the time we chatted unfortunately.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
After years and years of calling the libs criminals, owning the libs, hating the libs, intimidating the libs with yer guns and killing our babies with yer assault weapons, let’s just pretend it’s all just a different viewpoint.
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
Talk about weird. How weak do you have to be to say I've avoided that state? I've been through Idaho. I have already stated that many parts of it are beautiful. It's then true believer, gun toting, nature hating, women suppressing, ignorant people who are flocking to that area and who want to create a Tumpster paradise I avoid. And it's not "weak" for me to want to avoid them, it's smart. I've known them, I've talked to them. They have proven time and again they are not worth my time. And don't assume I am a bleeding heart liberal either. I act and react to things in ways that make sense to me, not that fit some label.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
After years and years of calling the libs criminals, owning the libs, hating the libs, intimidating the libs with yer guns and killing our babies with yer assault weapons, let’s just pretend it’s all just a different viewpoint.
LOL 9
We hate the polices and the guns. And the dead children. Y’all hate the libs.
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
Weak? Smart. Law of averages. Higher rejection amongst the populace of anyone or anything that looks or is different + higher % or average number of gun owners + higher number or average of “responsible” gun owners = better places to visit.
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
Weak? Smart. Law of averages. Higher rejection amongst the populace of anyone or anything that looks or is different + higher % or average number of gun owners + higher number or average of “responsible” gun owners = better places to visit.
Nah. All good. Stay in your blue safe (LOL) bubbles. It's a win win for all of us.
For the good part of the thread. Bought a battery leaf blower. So I did my part.
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
Weak? Smart. Law of averages. Higher rejection amongst the populace of anyone or anything that looks or is different + higher % or average number of gun owners + higher number or average of “responsible” gun owners = better places to visit.
Nah. All good. Stay in your blue safe (LOL) bubbles. It's a win win for all of us.
For the good part of the thread. Bought a battery leaf blower. So I did my part.
Too bad that first line is so unnecessarily snarky because your second comment deserves kudos.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
Weak? Smart. Law of averages. Higher rejection amongst the populace of anyone or anything that looks or is different + higher % or average number of gun owners + higher number or average of “responsible” gun owners = better places to visit.
Nah. All good. Stay in your blue safe (LOL) bubbles. It's a win win for all of us.
For the good part of the thread. Bought a battery leaf blower. So I did my part.
Ever hear of a rake and a broom? Brooms, they’re not just for riding.
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
Weak? Smart. Law of averages. Higher rejection amongst the populace of anyone or anything that looks or is different + higher % or average number of gun owners + higher number or average of “responsible” gun owners = better places to visit.
Nah. All good. Stay in your blue safe (LOL) bubbles. It's a win win for all of us.
For the good part of the thread. Bought a battery leaf blower. So I did my part.
so if it's weak to want to stay out of red states, wouldn't logic dictate that it's weak for you to want democrats to stay out of them?
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
Weak? Smart. Law of averages. Higher rejection amongst the populace of anyone or anything that looks or is different + higher % or average number of gun owners + higher number or average of “responsible” gun owners = better places to visit.
Nah. All good. Stay in your blue safe (LOL) bubbles. It's a win win for all of us.
For the good part of the thread. Bought a battery leaf blower. So I did my part.
so if it's weak to want to stay out of red states, wouldn't logic dictate that it's weak for you to want democrats to stay out of them?
Of course. Cooties. Don’t want no cooties. Scat, guns n all.
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
How weak do you have to be to avoid an entire state, in case some people may have a different viewpoint than yours? Weird
Weak? Smart. Law of averages. Higher rejection amongst the populace of anyone or anything that looks or is different + higher % or average number of gun owners + higher number or average of “responsible” gun owners = better places to visit.
Nah. All good. Stay in your blue safe (LOL) bubbles. It's a win win for all of us.
For the good part of the thread. Bought a battery leaf blower. So I did my part.
so if it's weak to want to stay out of red states, wouldn't logic dictate that it's weak for you to want democrats to stay out of them?
Of course. Cooties. Don’t want no cooties. Scat, guns n all.
Oh, but they're so cute!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
There are 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress who still deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change.
According to new analysis from the Center for American Progress,
there are still 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress, including
109 representatives and 30 senators, who refuse to acknowledge the
scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. All 139 of these
climate-denying elected officials have made recent statements casting
doubt on the clear, established scientific consensus
that the world is warming—and that human activity is to blame. These
same 139 climate-denying members have received more than $61 million in
lifetime contributions from the coal, oil, and gas industries.
While the number of climate deniers has shrunk by 11 members (from 150 to 139) since the CAP Action Fund’s analysis of the 116th Congress—largely in the face of growing and overwhelming public support
for action on climate—their numbers still include the majority of the
congressional Republican caucus.* These climate deniers comprise 52
percent of House Republicans; 60 percent of Senate Republicans; and more
than one-quarter of the total number of elected officials in Congress.
Furthermore, despite the decline in total overall deniers in Congress, a
new concerning trend has emerged: Of the 69 freshmen representatives
and senators elected to their respective offices in 2020, one-third deny
the science of climate change, including 20 new House Republicans and
three-of-four new Republican senators. Of note, no currently serving
Democratic or independent elected officials have engaged in explicit
climate denial by this analysis’ definition.**
MORE AT LINK
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
US supreme court rules against EPA and hobbles government power to limit harmful emissions
Court sides with Republican states as ruling represents landmark moment in rightwing effort to dismantle ‘regulatory state’
The US supreme court
has sided with Republican-led states to in effect hobble the federal
government’s ability to tackle the climate crisis, in a ruling that will
have profound implications for the government’s overall regulatory
power.
In a 6-3 decision that will seriously hinder America’s ability to stave off disastrous global heating, the supreme court, which became dominated by rightwing justices under the Trump administration, has opted to support a case brought
by West Virginia that demands the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) be limited in how it regulates planet-heating gases from the
energy sector.
The case, which was backed by a host of other Republican-led states
including Texas and Kentucky, was highly unusual in that it was based
upon the Clean Power Plan,
an Obama-era strategy to cut emissions from coal-fired power plants
that never came into effect. The Biden administration sought to have the
case dismissed as baseless given the plan was dropped and has not been
resurrected.
Not only was this case about a regulation that does not exist, that
never took effect, and which would have imposed obligations on the
energy sector that it would have met regardless. It also involves two
legal doctrines that are not mentioned in the constitution, and that most scholars agree have no basis in any federal statute.
However, the supreme court has sided with West
Virginia, a major coal mining state, which argued that “unelected
bureaucrats” at the EPA should not be allowed to reshape its economy by
limiting pollution – even though emissions from coal are helping cause worsening flooding, heatwaves and droughts around the world, as well as killing millions of people through toxic air.
“Capping
carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide
transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a
sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day’,” wrote
Chief Justice John Roberts in the opinion. “But it is not plausible
that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a
regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and
consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a
clear delegation from that representative body.”
Roberts
was joined by the conservative justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch,
Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The three liberal justices, Sonia
Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer dissented. It is the most
important climate change case to come before the supreme court in more
than a decade.
But the ruling could also have sweeping
consequences for the federal government’s ability to set standards and
regulate in other areas, such as clean air and water, consumer
protections, banking, workplace safety and public health. It may prove a
landmark moment in conservative ambitions to dismantle the “regulatory
state”, stripping away protections from Americans across a wide range of
areas.
It could fundamentally change what the
federal government is and what it does. And, as justice Elena Kagan
pointed out in her dissent, it could leave technical decisions to a
political body that may not understand them.
“First,
members of Congress often don’t know enough – and know they don’t know
enough – to regulate sensibly on an issue. Of course, members can and do
provide overall direction. But then they rely, as all of us rely in our
daily lives, on people with greater expertise and experience. Those
people are found in agencies,” she wrote.
Several
conservatives on the court have criticized what they see as the
unchecked power of federal agencies, concerns evident in orders throwing
out two Biden policies aimed at reducing the spread of Covid-19.
Last summer, the six-to-three conservative
majority ended a pandemic-related pause on evictions over unpaid rent.
In January, the same six justices blocked a requirement that workers at
large employers be vaccinated or test regularly for the coronavirus and
wear a mask on the job.
The Biden
administration was supported in the EPA court case by New York and more
than a dozen other Democratic-led states, along with prominent
businesses such as Apple, Amazon and Google that have called for a swift
transition to renewable energy.
The administration has vowed to cut US emissions
in half by the end of this decade but has floundered in its attempts to
legislate this outcome, with a sweeping climate bill sunk by the
opposition of Republican senators and Joe Manchin, the centrist Democratic senator from West Virginia.
The federal government also had the power of administrative regulations
in order to force reductions in emissions but the supreme court ruling
will now imperil this ability.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
In the event that it matters, the NY Times concurs with the above ^^^ saying:
"In striking down an E.P.A. plan to reduce carbon emissions from power
plants, the court issued a decision whose implications go beyond
hobbling the government’s ability to fight climate change. Many other
types of regulations might now be harder to defend."
Pay attention. This s. is f.u.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
‘Condemning everyone alive’: outrage at US supreme court climate ruling
Limiting the Environmental Protection Agency at a time when fossil fuel emissions need to be curbed is ‘devastating’
Amid heat records being shattered across the world and historic wildfires raging
across the west, climate activists and policymakers working to
aggressively curb greenhouse gas emissions are now facing a new kind of
challenge – restrictions issued by the US supreme court.
Earlier today, the court released a ruling
in West Virginia v EPA limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s
power to regulate emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, in a
major environmental case with far-reaching impacts. This has been
classified a “devastating”
outcome by environmental lawyers, climate scientists and activists
alike. One with far-reaching implications for the future of the country,
and world.
“At this point, for those in positions of high
power to deny the urgency and the stakes of the climate crisis is to
condemn everyone alive today and generations to come to life in a sick
and impoverished world,” said Ginger Cassady, executive director of
Rainforest Action Network.
The court’s conservative majority voted 6-3 in favor of leading coal producer West Virginia, in a lawsuit with challenges originally brought
by 20 other Republican attorneys general, who sued for the EPA to have
less regulatory power over existing power plants without express
authorization from Congress under the Clean Air Act. In the ruling, the
court’s conservative supermajority determined that the Clean Air Act
does not authorize anything other than direct regulation of power
plants.
“Global climate change is the
underlying environmental challenge of this day and age,” said senior
attorney Frank Rambo, who leads the energy program at the Southern
Environmental Law Center. “And the US is the leading contributor to that
globally. The ability of our federal government to get a handle on our
contribution to climate change is what’s at stake.”
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
watched David Attenborough's A Life On Our Planet on Netlix. if that doesn't scare the bejesus out of everyone, nothing will.
on the flip side, everyone seems to say we're "killing the planet". no we aren't. we're killing ourselves. Earth will be just fine if we're eventually gone. Once the virus is eradicated, the host thrives.
Mining coal from the topside or underground is still a job though and they have been in a sharp decline looking at those charts.
If you go out to those mining areas there isn't a whole lot going on usually and the other areas that stopped mining are just dead towns with no life.
Put up some wind turbines in those areas for a shot of life?
I understand for the need to stop burning coal. It's just the areas that they effect are bad off as it is. I think of the old steel areas too. Most of those towns never recovered.
I agree that cities that go into poverty because of outsourcing or, in the case of coal, discontinuation, need some kind of help with a recovery plan. I remember passing through downtown Akron, Ohio after the tire industry had moved out. The place was like a ghost town. It was strange and sad.
The difference, of course, is that Akron and steel towns like Bethlehem PA, etc. suffered due to corporate greed moving the industry and manufacturing to other countries where they could get cheap slave labor. Coal towns, on the other hand, may die because their industry needs to. What they need is a transition plan. I think that could happen if there is a will to make it happen.
There are a number of towns and small cities in California that died when gold mining dried up. Places like Coloma became something close to being ghost towns but eventually recovered through things like tourism and wine country. But that had at least as much to do with luck and local than planning. Hopefully coal town will receive help through good planning.
Almost like we need a Socialist Green New Deal... A man can dream...
If you listen to Andrew Yang and the obsolescence of certain jobs it would be wise for America to invest in it's future.
I have seen the future brother, it is murder...
But seriously we would have to stop with guns and war, proxy or otherwise and I'm not sure that the future will take precedent before it is too late.
We will go on no matter what happens. Hell, if the world goes to shit it's those rural places that I would rather be in.
You are wise to have experience in both the worlds of urban and rural. But I would avoid Idaho. I'm told that these days that state is turning into a completely anti-tolerance, anti-anything-close to liberal, major bastion of the hard core right. Sounds a bit scary to me! Too bad, because much of the state is beautiful.
I grew up next to Idaho. Our summer basketball tournaments always conflicted with the Aryan nation parades in Coeur d’Alene. That was the late 90’s. Hasn’t changed.
Central and north Idaho tends to be the white power crowd, north Idaho is also full of militia people, anti government not necessarily racist as a primary agenda. South Idaho gets into LDS territory. The Mormons are fine but not exactly tolerant politically
I’m spending my vacation next door in a really red state camping at our land in the middle of nowhere, I enjoy rural but I refuse to interact with a single person when there. I don’t go for the company so it’s fine with me
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
Talk about weird. How weak do you have to be to say I've avoided that state? I've been through Idaho. I have already stated that many parts of it are beautiful. It's then true believer, gun toting, nature hating, women suppressing, ignorant people who are flocking to that area and who want to create a Tumpster paradise I avoid. And it's not "weak" for me to want to avoid them, it's smart. I've known them, I've talked to them. They have proven time and again they are not worth my time. And don't assume I am a bleeding heart liberal either. I act and react to things in ways that make sense to me, not that fit some label.
Own it.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/06/09/explosion-texas-lng-plant-puts-added-strain-global-energy-market/
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
For the good part of the thread. Bought a battery leaf blower. So I did my part.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Climate Deniers in the 117th Congress
There are 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress who still deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change.
According to new analysis from the Center for American Progress, there are still 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress, including 109 representatives and 30 senators, who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. All 139 of these climate-denying elected officials have made recent statements casting doubt on the clear, established scientific consensus that the world is warming—and that human activity is to blame. These same 139 climate-denying members have received more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the coal, oil, and gas industries.
While the number of climate deniers has shrunk by 11 members (from 150 to 139) since the CAP Action Fund’s analysis of the 116th Congress—largely in the face of growing and overwhelming public support for action on climate—their numbers still include the majority of the congressional Republican caucus.* These climate deniers comprise 52 percent of House Republicans; 60 percent of Senate Republicans; and more than one-quarter of the total number of elected officials in Congress. Furthermore, despite the decline in total overall deniers in Congress, a new concerning trend has emerged: Of the 69 freshmen representatives and senators elected to their respective offices in 2020, one-third deny the science of climate change, including 20 new House Republicans and three-of-four new Republican senators. Of note, no currently serving Democratic or independent elected officials have engaged in explicit climate denial by this analysis’ definition.**
MORE AT LINK
US supreme court rules against EPA and hobbles government power to limit harmful emissions
Court sides with Republican states as ruling represents landmark moment in rightwing effort to dismantle ‘regulatory state’
The US supreme court has sided with Republican-led states to in effect hobble the federal government’s ability to tackle the climate crisis, in a ruling that will have profound implications for the government’s overall regulatory power.
In a 6-3 decision that will seriously hinder America’s ability to stave off disastrous global heating, the supreme court, which became dominated by rightwing justices under the Trump administration, has opted to support a case brought by West Virginia that demands the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) be limited in how it regulates planet-heating gases from the energy sector.
The case, which was backed by a host of other Republican-led states including Texas and Kentucky, was highly unusual in that it was based upon the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era strategy to cut emissions from coal-fired power plants that never came into effect. The Biden administration sought to have the case dismissed as baseless given the plan was dropped and has not been resurrected.
Not only was this case about a regulation that does not exist, that never took effect, and which would have imposed obligations on the energy sector that it would have met regardless. It also involves two legal doctrines that are not mentioned in the constitution, and that most scholars agree have no basis in any federal statute.
However, the supreme court has sided with West Virginia, a major coal mining state, which argued that “unelected bureaucrats” at the EPA should not be allowed to reshape its economy by limiting pollution – even though emissions from coal are helping cause worsening flooding, heatwaves and droughts around the world, as well as killing millions of people through toxic air.
“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day’,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the opinion. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”
Roberts was joined by the conservative justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer dissented. It is the most important climate change case to come before the supreme court in more than a decade.
But the ruling could also have sweeping consequences for the federal government’s ability to set standards and regulate in other areas, such as clean air and water, consumer protections, banking, workplace safety and public health. It may prove a landmark moment in conservative ambitions to dismantle the “regulatory state”, stripping away protections from Americans across a wide range of areas.
It could fundamentally change what the federal government is and what it does. And, as justice Elena Kagan pointed out in her dissent, it could leave technical decisions to a political body that may not understand them.
“First, members of Congress often don’t know enough – and know they don’t know enough – to regulate sensibly on an issue. Of course, members can and do provide overall direction. But then they rely, as all of us rely in our daily lives, on people with greater expertise and experience. Those people are found in agencies,” she wrote.
Several conservatives on the court have criticized what they see as the unchecked power of federal agencies, concerns evident in orders throwing out two Biden policies aimed at reducing the spread of Covid-19.
Last summer, the six-to-three conservative majority ended a pandemic-related pause on evictions over unpaid rent. In January, the same six justices blocked a requirement that workers at large employers be vaccinated or test regularly for the coronavirus and wear a mask on the job.
The Biden administration was supported in the EPA court case by New York and more than a dozen other Democratic-led states, along with prominent businesses such as Apple, Amazon and Google that have called for a swift transition to renewable energy.
The administration has vowed to cut US emissions in half by the end of this decade but has floundered in its attempts to legislate this outcome, with a sweeping climate bill sunk by the opposition of Republican senators and Joe Manchin, the centrist Democratic senator from West Virginia.
The federal government also had the power of administrative regulations in order to force reductions in emissions but the supreme court ruling will now imperil this ability.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
A ray of hope. Thank you!
The US supreme court just made yet another devastating decision for humanity
The EPA ruling means it may now be mathematically impossible through available avenues for the US to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions goal
‘Condemning everyone alive’: outrage at US supreme court climate ruling
Limiting the Environmental Protection Agency at a time when fossil fuel emissions need to be curbed is ‘devastating’
Amid heat records being shattered across the world and historic wildfires raging across the west, climate activists and policymakers working to aggressively curb greenhouse gas emissions are now facing a new kind of challenge – restrictions issued by the US supreme court.
Earlier today, the court released a ruling in West Virginia v EPA limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, in a major environmental case with far-reaching impacts. This has been classified a “devastating” outcome by environmental lawyers, climate scientists and activists alike. One with far-reaching implications for the future of the country, and world.
“At this point, for those in positions of high power to deny the urgency and the stakes of the climate crisis is to condemn everyone alive today and generations to come to life in a sick and impoverished world,” said Ginger Cassady, executive director of Rainforest Action Network.
The court’s conservative majority voted 6-3 in favor of leading coal producer West Virginia, in a lawsuit with challenges originally brought by 20 other Republican attorneys general, who sued for the EPA to have less regulatory power over existing power plants without express authorization from Congress under the Clean Air Act. In the ruling, the court’s conservative supermajority determined that the Clean Air Act does not authorize anything other than direct regulation of power plants.
“Global climate change is the underlying environmental challenge of this day and age,” said senior attorney Frank Rambo, who leads the energy program at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “And the US is the leading contributor to that globally. The ability of our federal government to get a handle on our contribution to climate change is what’s at stake.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
on the flip side, everyone seems to say we're "killing the planet". no we aren't. we're killing ourselves. Earth will be just fine if we're eventually gone. Once the virus is eradicated, the host thrives.
www.headstonesband.com
Central and north Idaho tends to be the white power crowd, north Idaho is also full of militia people, anti government not necessarily racist as a primary agenda. South Idaho gets into LDS territory. The Mormons are fine but not exactly tolerant politically
I’m spending my vacation next door in a really red state camping at our land in the middle of nowhere, I enjoy rural but I refuse to interact with a single person when there. I don’t go for the company so it’s fine with me