Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision(washingtonpost.com) |
Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision(washingtonpost.com) |
Part IX. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.
(2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.
(3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.
[1] https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00...
My favorite chunk of this thing / the meat of the argument:
> I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.
> ...
> For if [a man], during his own life, eat[s] up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, & then the lands would belong to the dead, & not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.
[1] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-024...
Reminds me of another famous quote from Jefferson. I wonder if describing things as "self-evident" was a personal favorite idiom of his or if it was just a common phrase back then. It seems like a fairly common phrase to me now, but it's hard to know if that's only because Jefferson popularized it.
What is the _duty_ of each Montanan to improve the environment? What is the limit of a state in passing laws requiring action to enforce such duty?
Sadly our founders predicted this would happen in away, Jefferson famously wanted all laws even the constitution to have a sunset of 19 years, requiring them to be debated and passed a new every generation.
(In my opinion) This historic law/provision is not specific enough (or it does not create a novel enough kind of cause of action) for the climate change type of problem, to be enforceable as it gets tested up the judicial chain. (see my other comment in this story)
Because the major barrier I see is, with the climate change problem in general, no one is able to concretely and incrementally connect someone's (tiny) polluting action to actual harm to someone far down the line. (for legal liability purposes -- not saying the link doesn't exist in scientific proof)
Let me phrase it this way. For someone to have an actionable legal cause, doesn't it require that the person/entity causing some claimed harm have a particularized, concrete, connected relationship to the harm? And that their cessation of the claimed causative action would remedy the issue? <--- this is the important thing
The kids claim that <xyz> climate detrimental action is causing them harm. In most cases (some gas guzzling vehicle, coal burning plant) etc. the thing they claim is harming them, even if it were to be completely shut down, would not solve the climate problem. They would still be experiencing the harm.
So how would a law be enforceable if anyone could be sued for something that minutely adds to climate change, and their stopping their activity would produce no measurable effect on the claimant's outcome? Heck, the kids' own existence could be said to be linked to climate change.
Or, how about this -- wind farms could be sued for minutely adding to the environment / climate change problem. Or big box retail stores for causing traffic and wasteful packaging. The list could go on and on. We have opened a can of worms like if you said that denial of "the pursuit of happiness" is something that people can sue over.
What legal principle is being promulgated here? I suspect this will be subject to significant review if more cases accumulate.
There is a remoteness doctrine that it can’t be so remote as to minutely add to a harm. And so this would limit claims to only large emitters, and then there would be a measurable impact on the outcome.
Animal agriculture is also a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, dead zones, and habitat loss. Her family's ranch my not align with her fight against climate change.
>Small numbers of grazers may be consistent with healthy ecosystems and have minimal greenhouse gas impact, but only if their populations stay within ecologically defined limits.
https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ran...
Source: I play a lawyer on TV.
Not watching a couple of billionaires experience weightlessness for a few minutes.
The attorneys for the state apparently did not dispute any of the provided science (which scope I don't know). What I find interesting is, why? Do they accept it? Or did they choose not to to avoid political blowback from challenging the science in court?
1. The state constitution says it's got to provide a clean environment
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/Constitution/IX/1.htm (so short I won't provide a quote)
2. The Montana Environmental Policy Act in Montana has some exceptions written into it and in subsequent revisions
https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Environmental/2021-m...
3. One of these exceptions is that it limits the scope of environmental review for some energy projects (Cmd-F "energy" in above link)
4. I didn't read the case docs so I don't know which particular limit or if something else was it violated the constitutional thing but something did according to the court.
I don't know what the things are that the folks are fighting against, but if it is one of those "everything must be environmentally reviewed" things that's used to stop windmills and nuclear plants from being built, then I'm on the other side of the kids. The article is that it's over fossil fuels, which sounds like the right target, but if someone else has details then please do share.
Yes, there are, indeed.
Of course many laws in many jurisdictions, nationally and internationally, need to be altered to have a meaningful impact. Just like many votes need to be altered to change the outcome of an election.
That's not an argument to leave all these climate affecting laws unaltered. Just like we want every single vote to be counted.
Wait until the State starts making changes to make this true. I am glad the youth won... but they only won the battle. The greedy capitalists will win the war by getting people in office to change everything they need so that none of this matters.
And if your response is- well I like this particular judge's ruling so it's OK, I would remind you that a different judge could come up with an equally stretched right-wing ruling. After all, a state could pass an anti-carbon pollution law only for 1 judge to arbitrarily decide that that somehow violates the constitution, or something. Right-wing judges have struck down gun control laws, campaign financing ones like Citizens United, anti-corruption laws.... the list goes on and on.
Strong judicial review is arbitrary and capricious
Pritzker's nuclear ban also means Montana invading a fellow state.
The US in 2021 emitted 4,700 Mtons of CO2.
The EU in 2021 emitted 2,700 Mtons of CO2.
China emitted nearly as much CO2 than the US and EU combined.
The US' CO2 output peaked in 2000, with 6000 Mtons, has been steadily declining ever since.
Why does the west love to rip ourselves to shreds over non-issues? Our enemies aren’t half as dedicated as we are.
Nothing Montana does has a measurable effect on global climate change.
Of all news stories, the ones involving court cases are the least inspiring.
This isn’t about a disadvantaged person overcoming adversity. It’s a bunch of suits sitting on a room.
You know prices would be even lower if we let all our rivers and groundwater be polluted, right? Led piping was cheaper than alternatives too.
Perhaps lower prices is not the all-important end you assume it to be?
It’s a market failure that needs to be rectified.
You could steal everything for free, why don't you?
Priceless
Why do you hate whales and birds? The environmental impact if windmills are pretty large
>The article is that it's over fossil fuels, which sounds like the right target,
MT has the largest coal reserves. Pretty sure that is target. The problem here like most of these things is the unintended consequences of these policies. Often they are only concerned with stopping the thing they believe is evil with no workable solutions as to what will replace it at all level, either from the energy demand stand point, economic fall out to the local economy, or the various other problems that some with regulatory change instead of market driven or natural change.
Do you have any citation for this? Any source that hasn't been debunked thoroughly? Has anyone not currently under multiple indictments for fraud ever suggested this in a serious way?
Legal or moral correctness, is not usually limited to a single judicial decision. When it is, it's remarkable enough that we learn about it early in schooling. Just because a Judge ruled to strike down a law, does not impact democracy in any way. It's a legal maneuver that will be challenged both in another legal arena and in the court of public opinion. These are the social frameworks that exist to protect against arbitrary bad actors and they matter, regardless if you think it's "OK" in isolation or not.
Everyone can agree that judges need some leeway in making decisions that are in the best public interest, regardless of the letter of the law...re: misspellings, grammar issues, ill-intent, etc. I happen to be a statist and think that the mere challenge to Federal Policy should not be discounted, because of futility. It's important to challenge governance from a distance, even today.
It will not be meaningfully challenged in the court of public opinion, which is completely irrelevant to judicial decisions. If it'll be challenged in an appellate court.... why not limit decisions blocking the democratically elected legislature to a full appeals court of 15 judges, as opposed to just 1? One party can always find 1 extremely ideological 'judge' in East Texas to enjoin the entire country.
>These are the social frameworks that exist to protect against arbitrary bad actors and they matter.... Everyone can agree that judges need some leeway in making decisions that are in the best public interest
I do not agree, and you are not considering that the judges themselves may be making ideological policy decisions as opposed to 'the best public interest'. It may interest you to learn that several other developed countries do not have judicial review whatsoever- whatever the legislature passes is the law, full stop. (In Netherlands that's literally in their constitution!)
Judges apply laws, they don't cook them up fresh
To answer your other response to me- the German judiciary works much faster with government actions, no reason the American one can't do the same. A lone judge could simply refer possible constitutional violations to the appellate court, which is totally free to issue an emergency declaration while it ponders the issue- courts do that every day
I swear, all I see is people throwing up their hands and saying "but it'd never work!" It's worked repeatedly, or nobody would've ever bothered with a constitution.
where I'm from the drive them down the highway on horseback and load them up on trains and drive them to the slaughterhouse. the land is kept similar to when however many thousands of bison roamed on it. as opposed to the nearby cities whose parks are overgrown with invasive brush or trimmed with petrol tractors.
I can do things to make my state better, China is distant and far more powerful than even the Big Sky state.
On June 21, after he had finished a draft and incorporated some changes from Adams, Jefferson had a copy delivered to Franklin, with a cover note far more polite than editors generally receive today. "Will Doctor Franklin be so good as to peruse it," he wrote, "and suggest such alterations as his more enlarged view of the subject will dictate?"
Franklin made only a few small changes, but one of them was resounding. Using heavy backslashes, he crossed out the last three words of Jefferson’s phrase, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" and changed it to read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
The concept of "self-evident" truths came less from Jefferson’s favored philosopher, Locke, than from the scientific determinism of Isaac Newton and the analytic empiricism of Franklin’s close friend David Hume. Hume had distinguished between "synthetic" truths that describe matters of fact (such as "London is bigger than Philadelphia" ) and "analytic" truths that are self-evident by virtue of reason and definition. ("The angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees" or "All bachelors are unmarried." ) When he chose the word "sacred," Jefferson had suggested intentionally or unintentionally that the principle in question the equality of men and their endowment by their creator with inalienable rights was an assertion of religion. By changing it to "self-evident," Franklin made it an assertion of rationality.”
For example, in Costa Rica the government is reactivating bottom trawling (which apart from destroying ecosystems also releases a lot of CO2), looking to extract natural gas, canceled the electric train plans, increased the maximum lifespan of busses even more (so, more polluting decades old units for population)...
You don’t have to get to the goal, only to tipping points that lock in the desired outcome.
I wasn't around then to have a sense of the broad social awareness of things, but I've gotten the impression that the science was fairly obvious before the 1970s.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/so-if-angstrom-already-...
If they had anticipated CO2 (and yes, I agree it was known by some well before this time), they should have / would have made it much more specific to include that kind of slow, "who is responsible" kind of harm.
I’m in my 40s, and for a good chunk of my childhood overpopulation and resource scarcity were big fears.
It took me a like time to accept the global warming consensus, because that’s what happens when experts cry wolf.
This looks like an interesting case, but also very specific to Montana.
We're not going to get China to agree to meaningfully lower emissions without doing proportionally much more ourselves. That's the reality.
Plus all those historical emissions are still around, heating up the planet, so we still bear responsibility for them. What you're advocating for is making the last guy to use the bathroom clean it up, when in fact many people have been befouling it for weeks before this guy even got there. And we have a pretty good idea of who those other people were and what they did. If the objective is a clean bathroom, I guarantee you pinning it on the last guy will not get it done.
At this point I put anyone who says "But what about China/India/Nigeria?" in the same camp as climate change deniers. It's just a different excuse to pass blame and guarantee nothing gets done, which is the point.
Also the case was largely about individual "extreme weather" events that have no clear, direct link to MT pollution, and there is zero evidence to suggest that should MT suspend all their pollution today, right now, it would change anything for these young people.
The clear intention of the law was to preserve the land from direct, articulable harm such as chemical dumping, clear cut mining, deforestation, etc etc etc
Was the clear intention of the law to allow dumping DDT into a river contaminated outside Montana?
An author of the constitutional article was a witness. The judge cited the constitutional convention transcripts also. Did you read them?
...
> The clear intention of the law was to preserve the land from direct, articulable harm such as chemical dumping, clear cut mining, deforestation, etc etc etc
I've read the Montana constitution and read up on the case. The points above are not clear to me. Is there something else your looking at that makes it clear to you?
Energy is crucial to our civilization, so cutting energy generation should be last on the list of priorities. If you really care about helping the whales, I'd suggest starting somewhere else first. Write your Congressperson to sponsor a bill eliminating all super yachts right now.
If human livestock consumption were closely matched to natural grazer consumption, essentially acting as a 1:1 replacement, this argument makes more sense. I don’t think that’s been true for at least a century at this point though.
> Killing them and eating them is not compatible with the environmental benefits of grazing
which does not attempt to qualify the disagreement at all.
Nuclear Energy Advocate / Activist and author... Also has a new Documentary coming out about Wales and Wind.
>Presumably someone you are using as an example of someone who seriously suggests that we should burn more coal
Unlikely, he supports Nuclear as the resolution for Fossil Fuels.
Like "Intelligent Design" practitioners, Shellenberger's work is not science. He starts with his conclusion in mind, and cherry-picks supporting evidence for it. And many of the things he cherry-picks are clearly in bad-faith and deliberately misleading. One such example, in his book "Apocalypse Never", he argues that climate change has no impact on fires, stating: "As for the Amazon, The New York Times reported, correctly, that the ‘fires were not caused by climate change.’" He cites this NYTimes article: [1] The entire point of the paragraph he snipped this quote from was the exact opposite. Here's the full quote:
> These fires were not caused by climate change. They were, by and large, set by humans. However, climate change can make fires worse. Fires can burn hotter and spread more quickly under warmer and drier conditions.
He's also just dead wrong about many things in this book. One easy example, he claims that "climate change so far has not resulted in increases in the frequency or intensity of many types of extreme weather". This is comically misinformed. There are countless peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the causal relationship. [2] [3] [4]
Shellenberger has a bad habit of either misunderstanding or purposefully misrepresents actual working scientists, while weirdly masquerading as if he is equally qualified. [5]
Is this criminal fraud? No. But Shellenberger seems like a grifter, selling the Breitbart crowd contrarian takes that they want to hear.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/world/americas/amazon-fir...
[2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920849117
[3] https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/101/3/E303/345043/...
[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-no...
[5] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-sh...
What will people's reactions be when you double the price of their food or gasoline?
I'd wager one of the reasons why America's economy does so well compared to Europe's is the much cheaper access to energy. For example, Lithuania pays twice the price for gasoline and almost 3 times the price for electricity, meanwhile income in Lithuania is less than half of US incomes.
People take a good economy for granted and are willing to trade it for many things. But then when the trade actually happens they will blame everyone else for the misery that results from it (eg "living wage" people).
I understand change is scary, or maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that. Either way, I would suggest to look at the options for the future and see that we have good alternatives for most things already. Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have
Environmentalism used to be about direct impact - contaminating waterways and the like. Moving to these more esoteric issues makes measuring and showing impact near impossible, and also makes people care less.
Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem rarely results in good outcomes for anyone and even rarer does it actually resolve the problem it was claimed to solve
More often the new regulations will be abused to profit a few, and hold back actual technological progress for decades (see Ethanol as an example)
For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world as we know it, always 10 years off before we are all dead. having lived many decades now, hearing these 10 year predictions often, and seeing them never come well color me unamused, and unmoved by this latest call to action.
Instead i choose to believe we will over come the challenges in the future has we have the ones from the past. With technological advancement, and market economics. Not government
Very unhelpful
Personal attacks like this make things harder for everybody
We must be kind, to make things better
>Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have
Change is scary when you're talking about increasing living costs by a large amount. Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.
Dismissing public opinion because you do not see a direct mechanism to affect change, is a misunderstanding of the inherent social power of Democracy. It is not irrelevant at all. Democracy is about policy being affected by public opinion through representation. A mechanism that doesn't suit an agenda in the short term is not toothless, just less swift than someone who is raging against a perceived injustice.
The concepts surrounding judicial review is taught in US high schools consistently. Even in the smallest of schools the hand wavy basics are described as:
1. congress makes laws
2. judicial interprets laws
3. executive enacts laws
> I do not agree, and you are not considering that the judges themselves may be making ideological policy decisions as opposed to 'the best public interest'.
Let's just dispense with the 'gotcha' retorts. Ofc I consider this. Judges are people and they have values that tend to align with their communities. The pessimistic view that they should all be considered bad actors is at odds with reality, as I know it.
> It may interest you to learn that several other developed countries do not have judicial review whatsoever- whatever the legislature passes is the law, full stop. (In Netherlands that's literally in their constitution!)
There will always have to be interpretation. Language (be it English or Dutch) is imperfect. Worse, it gets less precise as ideas become referential. The US and Netherlands are never going to use identical legal frameworks. Wishing that things were different has no utility for any possible future. Only the breakup of the US into another set of social contracts will proceed a change of that magnitude.
I (somewhat incredulously here) can't tell if you really believe that the judiciary only interprets laws, but no, that's wrong. In a country with strong judicial review, like the US or Germany, they can literally strike them down for being unconstitutional. Once that happens, both popular will and the legislature are irrelevant. Your 1st paragraph.... no idea what you're trying to say there.
Just as a quick example, banning flag burning has always been overwhelmingly popular with the electorate, and every single state plus the federal government used to have anti-flag burning laws on the books. The Supreme Court twice struck down such laws, which made the public and Congress enormously angry. And.... popular will is irrelevant. The Court has the final word on this and any other topic that you choose to take up. You could read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman
And in general I think it'd help to read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism. But yes, the judiciary essentially makes the law all the time (for example, see qualified immunity- created from whole cloth by the Court), in addition to striking them down as they choose. They hold ultimate power in our system of government. I don't think your general understanding of what judicial review is is correct
Might be caused by this type of thinking:
> I can't imagine every po-dunk jurisdiction that can barely justify 1 judge having 15.
Perhaps funding the court system to properly meet your first point would ease your concerns there?
Of course, when the price of oil starts dropping, they'll have to extract at a faster rate to keep profits up.
As more and more places outlaw bad practices, one could subsequently argue, it becomes increasingly lucrative to facilitate cheap fossil fuel usage. But look at how easy it is to do international trade with Russia before and after 2022: we can choose our partners and, while we can't force them, we can stop business from moving there, solving the problem for the vast majority of people's supplies and thus emissions.
Believing that a majority of others aren't as benevolent as oneself is the only bar to that being possible. Took me a bit to find it again, but I think the technical term for this is worst-motive fallacy: "participants significantly expected the [other] to pursue a worse course of action than they would prefer themselves" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620954492
Of course you can, but the playing field isn't level to begin with. Over the past century we've seen an increasing amount of urbanization happen. This causes issues such as constantly increasing housing prices, which make it into a good investment, which leads to more increases in housing prices. If you remove the reason for businesses to be in Montana, then some of them just won't be in Montana. They'll go where every other business is congregating to, because why wouldn't they?
Just look at the economic outcomes of "coal country". What you'll see is poverty. Climate action is important, but I have serious doubts on whether the people involved understand the kind of economic impact these decisions can have on the future of their state/city. Maybe they're rich enough that it won't affect them, but it's going to affect many.
You could say that "Oh, people will account for this and make sure that the poor people aren't affected," but then you look at eastern and western Kentucky. When the coal mines stopped hiring as many, the towns started dying out. What's left behind is poverty (by US standards).
I do think more needs to be done to stop climate change, but I would like to see people at least acknowledge the impacts it's going to have as a start.
https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/republicans-deliver...
Do you believe the EPA of today is the same EPA that was founded in those days?
or has the remit of the EPA like most federal agencies been expanded to the point of totalitarian control where by in many instances they are a detriment to their own stated goals, and certainly seen as no longer caring about balancing public liberty, property rights, or economic interests in their zealous often extremist pursuit of regulatory control over all aspects of anything remotely connected to their purview.
In short the EPA like most federal agencies routinely abuse their authority, invent new authority from thin air, and over all make the lives of every day people miserable who just want to build a home, a business or simply live their lives.
We either agree on practical solutions at scale, or we don't.
Social justice is another topic.
> Social justice is another topic
It's about practicality, not social justice. Put it bluntly: China (and India) won't accept a solution they feel is unfair. If you really want them to do something, fairness is not optional.
Go back to my analogy. You're saying "The bathroom doesn't care who cleans it, it just has to be done". But the people who would be doing the clean care very much and that ultimately determines if the bathroom is cleaned at all. Either you don't understand this basic point - which means you don't understand anything about human nature, and should therefore re-evaluate all of your opinions on public policy - or you're putting your head in the sand deliberately because you don't want to lift a finger yourself.
> We either agree on practical solutions at scale, or we don't.
So what are the practical solutions? Because telling China, or India "Stop industrializing right now!" so Americans can keep driving SUVs will simply not work.
India is not. Partnering with them on nuclear, incentives on transport and supply chain would pay off massively. Same is true for EU, which is all over the place - Finland builds reactors, the Germans go "green" by burning brown coal.
And then there are the hardcore solutions around SO2, which just got airtime due to the discovery of clean shipping and the massive backfire on ocean temps. Pump that thing into the atmosphere, buy time.
Also ban all private air travel.
I don't know if that's supposed to be about me, but I'm not from "murica". You and I are nearly neighbors, only separated by Poland. But I'm not proud of my country either: I vote for what I think will help us get better, but about 70% votes for a "let it burn" party
> Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.
Although we at least have some tax on some of the fuels (kerosine being a notable omission), ours is also not about discouragement, as far as I know. Fuel prices are dominated by market effects, not by discouragement, and evidently the high market price is not sufficient to make the difference that would be needed.
Maybe it's similar to movie/software piracy: not a pricing problem but a service problem (as Gabe Newell said). Having realistic alternatives rather than prohibitive pricing
You're wildly off in your calculations because you've failed to account for replacement rate. It's 90 million heads of cattle with 30 million killed each year.
https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/rx913p...
I wonder if that number was higher before humans reduced the number of predators.
> What's left behind is poverty (by US standards).
I'm afraid that climate change, at least if we would all apply US levels of action, would result in non-US levels of poverty for all but the wealthiest few. Depending also on how heavy-handed/inhumane one wants to be towards displaced immigrants from places that become mostly inhospitable or below sea level (most people worldwide live in coastal regions)
There's a reason those same groups refuse to support policies that would stave off climate change: it would require less exploitation of natural resources, and thus there's no money in it.
At least we agree on something, cheers
Literally the opposite of what I said
> For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world
I never claimed that either, but at least this time I didn't say the opposite. Some people seem to think it's an extinction threat, but personally I expect civilisation to continue, even if half of us starve and we reduce to a much smaller population while dealing with the fallout and having to rebuild. You may want to look into the consequences of global warming before judging whether it's similar to the end of the Mayan calendar or whatever end of the world events you're talking about
> what you perceive to be a problem
If you still think we aren't causing climate change, I'm not sure there's a point talking about it. Can't help people that don't do logic
literally not what I said... or even implied
>>similar to the end of the Mayan calendar or whatever end of the world events you're talking about
I am talking about world ending predictions in the realm of climate change... There have been many, and continue to be many that if we do not "act now" it will be "too late" these claims have been persistent since the 70's at least yet very few of those predictions have come true and then it is explained away with "well in the next decade we will be correct this time"... trust us we are "The Experts™©"
Climate activist are the living embodiment of the Boy who cried wolf parable
Could you be any more specific?
https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/hydraulic-fracturing....
We know a lot more about cancer and what causes it compared to when the EPA was founded. Look at how little we do with that knowledge.
Yelling at the clouds saying "but what about the corporations" does nothing to refute my original statement
Your comment is a prime example of cherry picking.
I gave you concrete examples (fracking), so that you said I was "yelling at the clouds" speaks to your bias.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/25/1178150234/supreme-court-epa-...