Inflation Reduction Act may be Unconstitutional - Take your Credits ASAP

[DIYrich]

"A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a $1.7 trillion spending bill was unconstitutionally passed in December 2022 due to the lack of a quorum, "
"Based on the Quorum Clause’s text, original public meaning, and historical practice, the Court concludes that the Quorum Clause bars the creation of a quorum by including non-present members participating by proxy,”

MSN

This calls into question the legality of a lot of legislation passed in the past few years, including the Inflation Reduction Act. So, take your tax credits NOW.

"THE HOUSE OF Representatives passed the Inflation Reduction Act on Friday, ... "
"Republicans banded together to vote by proxy in order to deny a physical quorum."

House Democrats Pass Historic Climate, Healthcare Bill over Republican Opposition

The House of Representatives passed the Inflation Reduction Act on Friday, with Republicans voting by proxy in an attempt to sabotage it.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[12VoltInstalls]

This calls into question the legality of a lot of legislation passed in the past few years

“While far from Democrats’ initial proposal, the act pledges a substantial cutback in greenhouse gas emissions, hoping to realize those cuts via massive tax credits — $400 billion over 10 years — for green energy development and deployment. The Biden administration has set a goal of cutting U.S. emissions to half of 2005 levels by 2030, and this bill aims go a long way toward that goal, with analysts saying it would produce a 40 percent reduction from 2005 levels by decade’s end.”

Which also pretty much makes a political statement that isn’t scientifically sound. I’m not calling into question that we’re experiencing an incremental warming cycle, but rather denoting the veracity or lack thereof of the politics of climate change. “We” - 1/2000 of world population- are trying to compensate for unchecked ‘pollution’ that the other 95%+ which places the ‘cost’ on the shoulders of that 1/2000 that live here.

Chasing this global ‘problem’ with a monetary penance on a population that has cleaned up the air and environment dramatically since the 1970’s with a potential impact in fractions of a percent seems illegitimate and poorly advised anyway.

I’m not advocating a “do nothing” approach, but I’m not an idiot, either: it seems rather pointless to groom the roosters when it’s the hens that lay the eggs and do so without the rooster participating or even being present.

 

[Mark-]

The ruling only applied to the two items that Paxton sued to overturn. It would take another lawsuit, to alter other items in the bill.

 

[Steve_S]

 

[Q-Dog]

“While far from Democrats’ initial proposal, the act pledges a substantial cutback in greenhouse gas emissions, hoping to realize those cuts via massive tax credits — $400 billion over 10 years — for green energy development and deployment. The Biden administration has set a goal of cutting U.S. emissions to half of 2005 levels by 2030, and this bill aims go a long way toward that goal, with analysts saying it would produce a 40 percent reduction from 2005 levels by decade’s end.”

Which also pretty much makes a political statement that isn’t scientifically sound. I’m not calling into question that we’re experiencing an incremental warming cycle, but rather denoting the veracity or lack thereof of the politics of climate change. “We” - 1/2000 of world population- are trying to compensate for unchecked ‘pollution’ that the other 95%+ which places the ‘cost’ on the shoulders of that 1/2000 that live here.

Chasing this global ‘problem’ with a monetary penance on a population that has cleaned up the air and environment dramatically since the 1970’s with a potential impact in fractions of a percent seems illegitimate and poorly advised anyway.

I’m not advocating a “do nothing” approach, but I’m not an idiot, either: it seems rather pointless to groom the roosters when it’s the hens that lay the eggs and do so without the rooster participating or even being present.

Despite our "low" population, the US is one of the highest energy consumers in the world. Kinda hard to ask the rest of the world to cut back when you don't do so yourself.

 

[y0bailey]

“While far from Democrats’ initial proposal, the act pledges a substantial cutback in greenhouse gas emissions, hoping to realize those cuts via massive tax credits — $400 billion over 10 years — for green energy development and deployment. The Biden administration has set a goal of cutting U.S. emissions to half of 2005 levels by 2030, and this bill aims go a long way toward that goal, with analysts saying it would produce a 40 percent reduction from 2005 levels by decade’s end.”

Which also pretty much makes a political statement that isn’t scientifically sound. I’m not calling into question that we’re experiencing an incremental warming cycle, but rather denoting the veracity or lack thereof of the politics of climate change. “We” - 1/2000 of world population- are trying to compensate for unchecked ‘pollution’ that the other 95%+ which places the ‘cost’ on the shoulders of that 1/2000 that live here.

Chasing this global ‘problem’ with a monetary penance on a population that has cleaned up the air and environment dramatically since the 1970’s with a potential impact in fractions of a percent seems illegitimate and poorly advised anyway.

I’m not advocating a “do nothing” approach, but I’m not an idiot, either: it seems rather pointless to groom the roosters when it’s the hens that lay the eggs and do so without the rooster participating or even being present.

I don't understand this at all.

We emit the most co2 per capita....of the whole entire planet.

You are arguing that the #1 per capita country should just keep taking shits in their own front yard because their neighbors are also shitting in their front yards?

We need to set an example. We need to build green technologies and sell them to other countries. We need to stop pretending our shit doesn't stink.

We are going to have to spend some money and think about the future. It's probably too late, but climate inaction is going to cost more than climate action in the long-run.

 

[Tulex]

Energy per capita isn't the issue. How much that energy consumption contributes to global warming is the issue, if you believe in that sort of thing.

 

[Tulex]

I don't understand this at all.

We emit the most co2 per capita....of the whole entire planet.

You are arguing that the #1 per capita country should just keep taking shits in their own front yard because their neighbors are also shitting in their front yards?

We need to set an example. We need to build green technologies and sell them to other countries. We need to stop pretending our shit doesn't stink.

We are going to have to spend some money and think about the future. It's probably too late, but climate inaction is going to cost more than climate action in the long-run.

That paints a one sided picture. Based on unproven facts about how much we are contributing, and discounting the environmental cost of green energy.

 

[y0bailey]

That paints a one sided picture. Based on unproven facts about how much we are contributing, and discounting the environmental cost of green energy.

Let's back that up with some data then...

Are we not the highest greenhouse gas emitting country per capita? Does that not contribute to climate change?

What are the long term greenhouse gas emissions of building solar panels and batteries ONCE, using them for 10-20 years? How does that compare to constantly setting fossil fuels on fire for those 10-20 years?

I'll even let you ignore the emissions created building our fossil fuel infrastructure...but you will certainly include it in your "green energy" analysis and still come out behind.


Plenty of data there that doesn't support your point. I'd love to be proven wrong with some actual data.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[rhino]

Not sure if this is really serious or not but most of the money went to companies that have already spent the money

 

[Tulex]

Let's back that up with some data then...

Are we not the highest greenhouse gas emitting country per capita? Does that not contribute to climate change?

What are the long term greenhouse gas emissions of building solar panels and batteries ONCE, using them for 10-20 years? How does that compare to constantly setting fossil fuels on fire for those 10-20 years?

I'll even let you ignore the emissions created building our fossil fuel infrastructure...but you will certainly include it in your "green energy" analysis and still come out behind.


Plenty of data there that doesn't support your point. I'd love to be proven wrong with some actual data.

I won't hold my breath.

Per capita doesn't matter. It's the percent of all that matters. China has like a gazillion people. So their per capita will be smaller. Yet they are building coal plants at a pace of over 100 a year.

Does it contribute to climate change? Probably, but no one knows how much. Climate change activists act like we are the only cause, when if fact, cyclical climate change happens with or without us.

The environmental cost of fossil fuels is a one time thing, there is no environmental cost down the road like there is with manufactured products.

I didn't say there aren't emissions creating fossil fuel infrastructure, I stated that it gets conveniently ignored when talking about green energy.

 

[Nobodybusiness]

Despite our "low" population, the US is one of the highest energy consumers in the world. Kinda hard to ask the rest of the world to cut back when you don't do so yourself.

Consuming vs Pollution is 2 different things.

 

[Nobodybusiness]

Are we not the highest greenhouse gas emitting country per capita? Does that not contribute to climate change?

No china is. More than double ours.

 

[JRH]

Despite our "low" population, the US is one of the highest energy consumers in the world. Kinda hard to ask the rest of the world to cut back when you don't do so yourself.

while to be good stewards of or planet is a great idea, untill CHINA ,INDIA and AFRICA act responsibly , anything we do in the West / EU is almost moot…

it’s like asking some tax payers to pay more taxes so the non- tax payer can bypass paying anything.

While the west may use a significant portion of power, it is done under many strict rules that dont exist in many country at all ….While the West is trying to close down everything coal and fossil related , China opens new ones without regard to any rules… They just do anything they feel like doing…
It’s like the rules don’t apply unless you live in the west and Europe.

Virtue signaling about “green efforts “ is truley a 1st world luxury…

We all,should do our part to help …not just a tiny fraction of the planets population.

The West , EU and the Aussies are all getting played…big time.

 

[y0bailey]

Per capita doesn't matter. It's the percent of all that matters. China has like a gazillion people. So their per capita will be smaller. Yet they are building coal plants at a pace of over 100 a year.

Does it contribute to climate change? Probably, but no one knows how much. Climate change activists act like we are the only cause, when if fact, cyclical climate change happens with or without us.

The environmental cost of fossil fuels is a one time thing, there is no environmental cost down the road like there is with manufactured products.

I didn't say there aren't emissions creating fossil fuel infrastructure, I stated that it gets conveniently ignored when talking about green energy.

Wow...zero data to support your statements. Who would have guessed!?

So let's just play your stupid game and ignore per capita. We are still the second or third largest emitter in the world. So your stupid logic is that we shouldn't worry because we are in second place instead of first, and not aim to improve, build green tech, and sell it to other developing nations? A major breakthrough here could be used in every country on earth and make a huge impact. But we aren't in first place so let's just stop trying and whine about China some more!?

What the fuck are you talking about the "environmental costs of fossil fuels is a one time thing"? You literally have to set them on fire to use them. It's a fucking EVERY TIME thing. Are there not trucks and pipelines moving them around the country? What kind of ass-backwards logic are you using here? Too stupid for words.

I literally told you to include infrastructure emissions for your green energy vs. fossil fuel comparisons that you haven't provided any data for. I'm stacking the deck in your favor and you are still going to be wrong.

Patiently awaiting a single piece of data to support your made up bullshit.

 

[y0bailey]

No china is. More than double ours.

Might want to look up the words "per capita" before you embarrass yourself more.

 

[Checkthisout]

C02 isn't a pollutant.

 

[Nobodybusiness]

Might want to look up the words "per capita" before you embarrass yourself more.

Might want to stop trying to manipulate the data before you embarrass yourself.


Pollution is pollution according to you regardless of how many people you have.

 

[Mark-]

Does that not contribute to climate change?

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines, 20 years ago altered the climate. That is provable. Other "causes", not so much.

 

[Checkthisout]

Oh I got one.

Let's say it is real, why is the outcome purported to be negative when absolutely nothing negative has happened thus far?

When does the disaster begin?