Supreme Court: Are You Tired Of Winning...

[tabibito]

I'm sorry but there are not 'record fires in the US south west'.

Indeed, they are miniscule compared to the fires that occurred in the 1500s-1800s. We used to have 100s of millions of acres burning ANNUALLY, average of around 150 million per year. For comparison, our 'record fires' this year amount to a measley 3 million (1.5 million last year) acres burned thus far.

And most of the fire issues we have today are due to 'environmentalists' interfering with forest management and the long-time policy of suppression of all fires no matter if they threaten anyone or not, and even then we are not even close to those record fires before 1800s

When it comes to climate change, the press have some interesting interpretations of "worst on record" and "unprecedented" among other words.

That the world is getting warmer can't be disputed - increasing sea levels and diminishing ice sheets attest to the fact.

Human activity is contributing to the problem, but percentage contribution is a matter for debate. Deforestation and fossil fuel burning definitely are forcing factors, with other activities also contributing. Deforestation is arguably the most significant factor.

Non human forcers (include): - Volcanoes releasing large volumes of green house gases, and melting ice sheets releasing CO₂ in volume: Ice traps carbon dioxide far more efficiently than it does oxygen.

H_A is right in saying we can't stop it. It would be nice if "the powers that be" would start to consider devising strategies to cope with it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Which is not relevant because it is not the sort of thing the Court is supposed to consider (at least from the perspective of judicial conservatism). Outcomes and their potential impacts should rank far below the question of whether the law or regulation being disputed is in keeping with the Constitution, if those outcomes and potential impacts are considered at all.

This ruling reduces the options for a federal agency to limit greenhouse emissions from power plants.

It might not be relevant to you but a further increase in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere [given what is already happening with climate change] is going to be highly relevant to any grand [or great] grand children you may have.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

When it comes to climate change, the press have some interesting interpretations of "worst on record" and "unprecedented" among other words.

That the world is getting warmer can't be disputed - increasing sea levels and diminishing ice sheets attest to the fact.

Human activity is contributing to the problem, but percentage contribution is a matter for debate. Deforestation and fossil fuel burning definitely are forcing factors, with other activities also contributing. Deforestation is arguably the most significant factor.

Non human forcers (include): - Volcanoes releasing large volumes of green house gases, and melting ice sheets releasing CO₂ in volume: Ice traps carbon dioxide far more efficiently than it does oxygen.

H_A is right in saying we can't stop it. It would be nice if "the powers that be" would start to consider devising strategies to cope with it.

Perhaps what Gondwanaland is overlooking is that within the dates he mentions those areas did not have the populations they now enjoy. He also seems to be overlooking all the other environmental issues that are occurring as a result of anthropogenic influences on climate change. Wildfires cannot be taken in isolation.

Of course none of this will affect the planet in the long term - mass extinctions have occurred in the past, and life has recovered and flourished.

It is firstly, the ethical aspect where deliberate behaviour is exacerbating climate change and its impact on other species, and secondly, the long-term consequences of that behaviour for future generations of humans.

[NorrinRadd]

This ruling reduces the options for a federal agency to limit greenhouse emissions from power plants.

It might not be relevant to you but a further increase in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere [given what is already happening with climate change] is going to be highly relevant to any grand [or great] grand children you may have.

It reduces the power of an agency. But the power does not cease to exist. It reverts to Congress where it belongs. Congress likes to hide from responsibility by handing off power. Agencies are part of the Executive Branch, which is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws Congress passes. They are empowered to make "regulations," which more or less have the force of laws. But those regulations are intended to be subsidiary and pursuant to the "actual" laws passed by Congress. It is not appropriate for an "agency," which by nature is run by *unelected* bureaucrats, to cobble together various individual regulations to create something as sweeping in scope and power as "actual" laws. That kind of power belongs more directly in the hands of the branch that is most responsible to the electorate. If "climate change" really is that much of an imminent threat, the onus is on Congress to either persuade their constituents of such and then pass laws accordingly, or else ignore the wishes of their constituents and pass the laws anyway, and then take the beating at the next election. They no longer get to hide behind "agencies."

[rogue06]

This ruling reduces the options for a federal agency to limit greenhouse emissions from power plants.

That was the point. They are not allowed to "rule" by fiat and were pulled back within their boundaries.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

I supposed you would complain if they were summarily seizing property and were stopped because that would reduce their options. Maybe line up a bunch of folks for a quick execution? Stopping that might reduce their options, so that too must be allowed.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It reduces the power of an agency. But the power does not cease to exist. It reverts to Congress where it belongs.

When did Congress last pass any serious legislation to deal with the impact of climate change?

Congress likes to hide from responsibility by handing off power. Agencies are part of the Executive Branch, which is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws Congress passes. They are empowered to make "regulations," which more or less have the force of laws. But those regulations are intended to be subsidiary and pursuant to the "actual" laws passed by Congress. It is not appropriate for an "agency," which by nature is run by *unelected* bureaucrats, to cobble together various individual regulations to create something as sweeping in scope and power as "actual" laws. That kind of power belongs more directly in the hands of the branch that is most responsible to the electorate. If "climate change" really is that much of an imminent threat, the onus is on Congress to either persuade their constituents of such and then pass laws accordingly, or else ignore the wishes of their constituents and pass the laws anyway, and then take the beating at the next election. They no longer get to hide behind "agencies."

If the Republican party does indeed take the Senate in November, how likely [in your opinion] is that body going to be prepared to pass legislation to control emissions [and in fact] any effective legislation to deal with all US anthropogenic influences on climate change?

[NorrinRadd]

When did Congress last pass any serious legislation to deal with the impact of climate change?

Not sure. I'd guess roughly never.

If the Republican party does indeed take the Senate in November, how likely [in your opinion] is that body going to be prepared to pass legislation to control emissions [and in fact] any effective legislation to deal with all US anthropogenic influences on climate change?

Much more likely to do anything possible to reverse or at least limit the greeniac agenda that is a large contributing factor to inflation.

[rogue06]

When did Congress last pass any serious legislation to deal with the impact of climate change?



If the Republican party does indeed take the Senate in November, how likely [in your opinion] is that body going to be prepared to pass legislation to control emissions [and in fact] any effective legislation to deal with all US anthropogenic influences on climate change?

Likely about the same as the Democrats every time when they controlled Congress and the presidency.

Both parties liked the fact that government agencies would do their work for them. That way they aren't responsible.

That cover has been removed now so things might change significantly.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Not sure. I'd guess roughly never.

Thank you.

Much more likely to do anything possible to reverse or at least limit the greeniac agenda that is a large contributing factor to inflation.

So nothing to alleviate the increasing impact of climate change then? Just the limiting of what you describe as the "greeniac agenda"?

In other words "business as usual" with the option to [and yes the following is sarcasm] pollute at will?

[Gondwanaland]

Perhaps what Gondwanaland is overlooking is that within the dates he mentions those areas did not have the populations they now enjoy. He also seems to be overlooking all the other environmental issues that are occurring as a result of anthropogenic influences on climate change. Wildfires cannot be taken in isolation.

Of course none of this will affect the planet in the long term - mass extinctions have occurred in the past, and life has recovered and flourished.

It is firstly, the ethical aspect where deliberate behaviour is exacerbating climate change and its impact on other species, and secondly, the long-term consequences of that behaviour for future generations of humans.

I'm not overlooking anything. You made a factually inaccurate claim, and I corrected it. Your avoidance of that is telling.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm not overlooking anything. You made a factually inaccurate claim, and I corrected it. Your avoidance of that is telling.

I would suggest that this article puts the whole thing into perspective and while I I concede that some fires in the past have been worse, the situation is unlikely to get any better in the foreseeable future

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/10987...-unprecedented

In New Mexico, the massive Calf Canyon-Hermits Peaks Fire is now officially the state's largest recorded wildfire in modern history, eclipsing the 297,845 acre Whitewater-Baldy Fire Complex of 2012. On Monday morning fire officials listed Calf Canyon-Hermits peak at 298,060 acres.

Fanned by erratic and unpredictable winds and growing by more than 90,000 acres in the past week, Calf Canyon-Hermits Peak fire has already burned more acres than burned last year in all of New Mexico.

Spring is historically a busy time for wildfires in the Southwest, before the summer monsoons arrive around the Fourth of July, ifthey do. But this year, as in recent ones, large fires began igniting in the region at least a month early due to an extended drought made worse by human-caused climate change.

Scientists say much of the West is experiencing its driest conditions in 1,200 years

In fact, scientists now say much of the West is experiencing its driest conditions in 1,200 years.

"From a fire perspective, the dice are now loaded for another big fire year in 2022," says Park Williams, an associate professor in geography at UCLA. "It's likely that 2022 is going to go down as another year that reminds us that fire is inevitable."

Williams is studying the fallout of the current 23-year megadrought in the western U.S. by examining volumes of tree rings and other data from remote forests around the region. Scientists now know that extraordinary droughts like this one were quite common in the West historically. It's thought that much of the 20th century was actually an anomaly because it was relatively wet.

That time coincided with an explosion of development into wild ecosystems dependent on periodic fires, and also a still-standing U.S. government policy to stamp out nearly every new wildfire ignition.

"We did a great job for a 100 years stopping fires. But despite our best efforts, we are losing control of the fire regime in the West," Williams says. "There are too many trees and it's too warm and things are drying out and we're getting a lot of fire."

Fire scientists predict a long, expensive, destructive and smoky summer

Fire scientists predict another long, expensive, destructive and smoky summer. There's little to no indication that things will improve in the coming years either. But experts caution about calling this current crisis - where upwards of 10 million or more acres is burning in the lower 48 states every year - unprecedented. In fact, look back toward the beginning half of the 20th century even, and total acres burned tended to be much higher.

"There are more people in the path of these fires, and that can make them more destructive. But look back towards the past and [you] see the size and ferocity of fires that have taken place just within the last century," says Lincoln Bramwell, the chief historian for the U.S. Forest Service.

Lately in the scientific community and the news media, the term megafire has emerged as way to describe blazes like Calf Canyon-Hermits Peak or the deadly 2018 Camp Fire that destroyed most of Paradise, California. But historians like Bramwell bristle a bit at this because it suggests they're unprecedented when they're really not: I1871, for instance, the Peshtigo Fire roared through the Wisconsin forest killing some 1,200 people. In 1910, a complex of wildfires dubbed the Great Burn burned three million acres in one summer from southeast British Columbia to western Montana.

Before the U.S. government got so good at wildfire suppression, Bramwell says, it was typical to see twenty to thirty million acres of forests burn in the West.

"Culturally we have a hard time wrapping our heads around that because we've kind of expected that this doesn't happen," he says. "And if it does happen, there are a lot of resources that will come out and try to save the day."

The game changer, however, is climate change, which will likely make these modern fires much worse. Previous mega droughts like these did not occur at a time when the atmosphere was being warmed by human activity. Hotter, longer summers brought on by climate changes have lengthened fire season by 30 to 45 days across much of the west. So there's a good deal of uncertainty about what the future will bring. But most fire managers on the ground are bracing for the worst and trying to manage the public's expectations, as a result.

Firefighters can't be expected to stop wildfires amid this unusually warm, dry and windy spring

In Boulder, Colo., which has already seen a number of close calls amid this unusually warm, dry and windy spring, the city's wildland fire chief, Brian Oliver, says firefighters can't be expected to stop wildfires.

"I equate that to trying to fight a hurricane," he says. "We don't mobilize a force to go turn around a hurricane, we get everybody out of the way and then we try to come back in and clean up after."

And the times that a wildfire is caught and put out early on, that just leaves more fuels on the ground for the next inevitable ignition. UCLA drought expert Park Williams says the country's legacy and success of putting out fires has now backed us into a corner as the western drought persists.

"Unfortunately, we're finding that a lot of these places that we have now sunk a lot of resources into protecting and invested a lot of human capital into living in, those places are becoming very unsafe to live in because of the rapidly accelerating fire risk," Williams says.

[Gondwanaland]

I would suggest that this article puts the whole thing into perspective and while I I concede that some fires in the past have been worse, the situation is unlikely to get any better in the foreseeable future

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/10987...-unprecedented

In New Mexico, the massive Calf Canyon-Hermits Peaks Fire is now officially the state's largest recorded wildfire in modern history, eclipsing the 297,845 acre Whitewater-Baldy Fire Complex of 2012. On Monday morning fire officials listed Calf Canyon-Hermits peak at 298,060 acres.

Fanned by erratic and unpredictable winds and growing by more than 90,000 acres in the past week, Calf Canyon-Hermits Peak fire has already burned more acres than burned last year in all of New Mexico.

Spring is historically a busy time for wildfires in the Southwest, before the summer monsoons arrive around the Fourth of July, ifthey do. But this year, as in recent ones, large fires began igniting in the region at least a month early due to an extended drought made worse by human-caused climate change.

Scientists say much of the West is experiencing its driest conditions in 1,200 years

In fact, scientists now say much of the West is experiencing its driest conditions in 1,200 years.

"From a fire perspective, the dice are now loaded for another big fire year in 2022," says Park Williams, an associate professor in geography at UCLA. "It's likely that 2022 is going to go down as another year that reminds us that fire is inevitable."

Williams is studying the fallout of the current 23-year megadrought in the western U.S. by examining volumes of tree rings and other data from remote forests around the region. Scientists now know that extraordinary droughts like this one were quite common in the West historically. It's thought that much of the 20th century was actually an anomaly because it was relatively wet.

That time coincided with an explosion of development into wild ecosystems dependent on periodic fires, and also a still-standing U.S. government policy to stamp out nearly every new wildfire ignition.

"We did a great job for a 100 years stopping fires. But despite our best efforts, we are losing control of the fire regime in the West," Williams says. "There are too many trees and it's too warm and things are drying out and we're getting a lot of fire."

Fire scientists predict a long, expensive, destructive and smoky summer

Fire scientists predict another long, expensive, destructive and smoky summer. There's little to no indication that things will improve in the coming years either. But experts caution about calling this current crisis - where upwards of 10 million or more acres is burning in the lower 48 states every year - unprecedented. In fact, look back toward the beginning half of the 20th century even, and total acres burned tended to be much higher.

"There are more people in the path of these fires, and that can make them more destructive. But look back towards the past and [you] see the size and ferocity of fires that have taken place just within the last century," says Lincoln Bramwell, the chief historian for the U.S. Forest Service.

Lately in the scientific community and the news media, the term megafire has emerged as way to describe blazes like Calf Canyon-Hermits Peak or the deadly 2018 Camp Fire that destroyed most of Paradise, California. But historians like Bramwell bristle a bit at this because it suggests they're unprecedented when they're really not: I1871, for instance, the Peshtigo Fire roared through the Wisconsin forest killing some 1,200 people. In 1910, a complex of wildfires dubbed the Great Burn burned three million acres in one summer from southeast British Columbia to western Montana.

Before the U.S. government got so good at wildfire suppression, Bramwell says, it was typical to see twenty to thirty million acres of forests burn in the West.

"Culturally we have a hard time wrapping our heads around that because we've kind of expected that this doesn't happen," he says. "And if it does happen, there are a lot of resources that will come out and try to save the day."

The game changer, however, is climate change, which will likely make these modern fires much worse. Previous mega droughts like these did not occur at a time when the atmosphere was being warmed by human activity. Hotter, longer summers brought on by climate changes have lengthened fire season by 30 to 45 days across much of the west. So there's a good deal of uncertainty about what the future will bring. But most fire managers on the ground are bracing for the worst and trying to manage the public's expectations, as a result.

Firefighters can't be expected to stop wildfires amid this unusually warm, dry and windy spring

In Boulder, Colo., which has already seen a number of close calls amid this unusually warm, dry and windy spring, the city's wildland fire chief, Brian Oliver, says firefighters can't be expected to stop wildfires.

"I equate that to trying to fight a hurricane," he says. "We don't mobilize a force to go turn around a hurricane, we get everybody out of the way and then we try to come back in and clean up after."

And the times that a wildfire is caught and put out early on, that just leaves more fuels on the ground for the next inevitable ignition. UCLA drought expert Park Williams says the country's legacy and success of putting out fires has now backed us into a corner as the western drought persists.

"Unfortunately, we're finding that a lot of these places that we have now sunk a lot of resources into protecting and invested a lot of human capital into living in, those places are becoming very unsafe to live in because of the rapidly accelerating fire risk," Williams says.

No? Not "some fires"

For hundreds of years, ANNUALLY, yearly, fires destroyed an order of magnitude larger amount than current fires do, even a very fire-filled season like this year. Not just a couple one-off larger fires in the past like you seem to be trying to portray, but yearly an order of magnitude larger in the past for hundreds of years.

Your "record" claims are simply not representative of reality.

And again the main reason we even have the level of fire and intensity we have today is because of decades of poor management and the "environmentalist" policy of not clearing the forests and of putting out any fire that starts and not doing controlled burns.

[Cow Poke]

That this ruling is going to assist in exacerbating climate change.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ZERO responsibility for 'climate change'. Your ignorance is astounding.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No? Not "some fires"

In some areas, yes. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the entire region that now is regarded as the US southwest was continually and regularly in flames.

For hundreds of years, ANNUALLY, yearly, fires destroyed an order of magnitude larger amount than current fires do, even a very fire-filled season like this year. Not just a couple one-off larger fires in the past like you seem to be trying to portray, but yearly an order of magnitude larger in the past for hundreds of years.

We would both need to find scientific papers that have recorded the evidence of all forest fires across what is now considered to be the entire US southwest over the past 600 years.

Your "record" claims are simply not representative of reality.

The reality is that prolonged drought and the risk of serious fires are not going to decrease as climate change continues.

And again the main reason we even have the level of fire and intensity we have today is because of decades of poor management and the "environmentalist" policy of not clearing the forests and of putting out any fire that starts and not doing controlled burns.

That is another issue.

[Cow Poke]

In some areas, yes. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the entire region that now is regarded as the US southwest was continually and regularly in flames.


We would both need to find scientific papers that have recorded the evidence of all forest fires across what is now considered to be the entire US southwest over the past 600 years.

The reality is that prolonged drought and the risk of serious fires are not going to decrease as climate change continues.

That is another issue.

This whole thing is yet another typical H_A derail, either because she's too stupid to comprehend the actual issue, or she's just a .