Skip to main content

View Diary: In Major Decision to Benefit Climate Change Mitigation;SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to EPA Authority (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Since climate change mitigation requires an act of (0+ / 0-)

    emissions control for a greenhouse gas pollutant emission, an EPA rule that has zero effect on requiring such an GHG emission reduction and does not, in itself, require any emission control reductions at all cannot be deemed as an action that can be described as "climate change mitigation."

    •  amazing. you believe that climate change (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      mitigation can only come from a legal decision? wow!  So then stands to reason that GHG emissions come from laws not consumption. my time has more value than this.

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:05:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What I said was that 'climate change mitigation' (0+ / 0-)

        requires an act of emissions control for greenhouse gas pollutants.   By 'act' I meant a physical act of emission control taken by emission sources to reduce emissions.   I was not referring to 'act' as a law.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site