Discussion for article #238050
In these cases, I guess it was okay for unelected, college-educated lawyers to decide things, eh?
1 Like
Given that industry were required to comply with the EPA regs, even while waiting for their lawsuits to work through the courts, we might be a little less reactionary about the decision. In a classic pyrrhic victory, industry have largely complied with the rules. And it is unlikely they would roll back the clock.
If the EPA had done a cost/benefit analysis prior to issuing the rules there would have been no case. I believe they found (later) that the public health benefit outweigh the cost of compliance nine times over. This is more of a technical loss than a “real” policy loss. There will be some repercussions in the future for the EPA in the machinations they use for issuing new rules, but perhaps we should take this loss like intelligent liberals and not whine too much.
It’s amazing with the track record of how almost every, if not every, environmental or safety regulation helped not only people but businesses, that there is still a fight over every change. Look at how many car ads emphasis the safety features or gas mileage. And I like when I see an old classic car being driven on the road today but get behind one and the stench and fumes coming out of the tail pipe makes me damn glad for the changes.