AnonTwo comments on Joe Biden’s DOJ is Claiming “There is No Constitutional Right to a Stable Climate”

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 27 points 3 years ago (12 children)

It's a nothing article. There's no reason to have ever assumed it was a constitutional right

There's plenty of other, much better reasons to justify the need for stable climate.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml [S] 9 points 3 years ago (11 children)

It's not about justifying the need for a livable climate, but being able to legally enforce the future having one.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 14 points 3 years ago (5 children)

The constitution also doesn't deny the right to a stable climate, if that is what you mean.

It just has nothing to do with it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] datszechuansauce@infosec.pub 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

Justify the existence of national parks then

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

Not sure why you're here 4 days later...but nothing in the constitution says they can't have national parks.

Again, the issue is just it has nothing to do with it. There's easily other avenues to go about than the constitution.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] datszechuansauce@infosec.pub 1 point 3 years ago

Why are you here? And if nothing in the constitution says we can't have national parks, nothing in it says we can't regulate a stable climate.

I don't even really disagree with you that there are better ways to go about it. It's just stupid to agree with their claim.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Your right, but this needs to change. In order to stop Billionaires from ensuring there isn't a single functional ecosystem, legal actions will be necessary.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago

Probably, but it doesn't need to be enshrined in the Constitution. The federal government already has the power to regulate emissions, it doesn't need the Constitution to reiterate that.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Sentrovasi@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Then possibly something needs to change - add a new Amendment or something. But to claim that old laws written with an old understanding of how the world works needs to somehow carry the semantic weight of something it was never written to do seems a bit much.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 years ago

Why does the Constitution need to be involved? The federal government already has power to regulate emissions, so there's nothing stopping Congress (from a constitutional perspective) from passing laws to do so.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Seraph@kbin.social 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Wouldn't that be the EPA's job? I do wish they had more power or were more strict when it came to climate change measures. I did find this though: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 3 years ago

Ya, the funding cuts make it tough to do though. The EPA actually just decided to not reevaluate the smog standards showing the inability to do much at all.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago

The SCOTUS ruled last year that the EPA does not have the authority to do essentially anything real to protect the environment.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent