• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump's rollback of vehicle emission standards

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
By the way, three Republican controlled states recently -- within the last week or so -- criminalized protesting fossil fuel companies. So long freedoms of speech and assembly in Kentucky, West Virginia, and one more state (whose name I forget). Naturally, the ACLU or someone will file lawsuits, but guess what? There is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Republicans sure do love the Constitution. Great conservatives, today's Republicans. Great conservatives.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
By the way, three Republican controlled states recently -- within the last week or so -- criminalized protesting fossil fuel companies. So long freedoms of speech and assembly in Kentucky, West Virginia, and one more state (whose name I forget). Naturally, the ACLU or someone will file lawsuits, but guess what? There is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Republicans sure do love the Constitution. Great conservatives, today's Republicans. Great conservatives.

A disturbing trend!

'Protesters as terrorists': growing number of states turn anti-pipeline activism into a crime

But here is some good news (get it):

Grand Jury Refuses Felonies For Greenpeace Activists In Houston Oil Industry Protest | CleanTechnica

I think even the current USSC might strike these laws down. :shrug:
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
And people will actually find these rollbacks defensible.

You're right. Some people realize that these standards are probably overkill (especially since most cars today no longer burn lead, so even just regular emissions are still pretty).

Also, if we're talking about the ethanol that people insist must be in gas, doing this basically means that if you have a lawnmower or a boat, you can expect to mess up your engine. We have a regular gas station and a non-ethanol one because alot of people have big yards here, and alot of people how houses near the docks.

Nix to that anti-pipeline thing. I'm not in favor of arresting people for showing up in numbers, so long as they keep it peaceful.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm sure their mischief would entail more than just holding signs up and chanting if it warrants criminalization.
Perusing some linked articles, it appeared to criminalize impeding energy
production, & vandalizing. I didn't see anything about peaceful protesting
being made illegal....although it's possible that happened somewhere.

Btw, I'm pro-emission regulation. Those compelled to
protest should continue, but without vandalism or violence.
 
Last edited:

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The article doesn’t say anything about criminalizing protests. It says the laws criminalize things such as violence or inhibiting the operations of pipelines and other infrastructures. This is not different than restrictions on those opposing abortion clinics. And as far as the timing, that’s a red herring.

Basically this is no story at all. It has no legs.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"Former President Barack Obama issued a rare criticism of the Trump administration Tuesday..."

Obama slams rollback of vehicle emission standards in rare rebuke of Trump - CNNPolitics


:rage:
CNN, that figures.

It is debatable whether the lower rate of increase in CAFE standards will have the increased emissions the article and its sources claim. By lowering the increase rate new vehicle prices will also be about $100 less. Which means more older, higher emission vehicle will be replaced sooner. Which means lower overall emissions. Obama got it wrong. He is more concerned with his “legacy” than the environment.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The article doesn’t say anything about criminalizing protests. It says the laws criminalize things such as violence or inhibiting the operations of pipelines and other infrastructures. This is not different than restrictions on those opposing abortion clinics. And as far as the timing, that’s a red herring.

Basically this is no story at all. It has no legs.
It says this :
Conservative lawmakers have put forward laws criminalizing protests that disrupt the construction and operation of pipelines in at least 18 states since 2017.

  • Seven states have passed laws that ratchet up the penalties for activists protesting or even planning protests of oil and gas pipelines and other “critical infrastructure”

  • At least six more states are considering such laws

  • In each case, misdemeanors are elevated to felonies, and criminal and civil punishments are escalated drastically

  • The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have mounted challenges against such laws in Louisiana and South Dakota.
Next time try reading before commenting.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It says this :

Next time try reading before commenting.
It's most odd that the article makes the claim, but provides
no quoted text from the legislation which criminalizes
protests, as differentiated from vandalizing & other
interference. To criminalize political speech & its
planning would be outrageously unconstitutional.
I'd expect some evidence thereof.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It says this :

Next time try reading before commenting.
I read it, perhaps you should. It only criminalizes the violence of the “violent protests” [sic], not the protests per se themselves. The law (not the spin interpretation of the authors) criminalizes the violence or obstruction. It makes no impingement, nor mentions protests per se.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
"Former President Barack Obama issued a rare criticism of the Trump administration Tuesday..."

Obama slams rollback of vehicle emission standards in rare rebuke of Trump - CNNPolitics

If electric was a cheap alternative a roll back wouldn't be required





A number of the protests have done damage and left their garbage laying around. No one but the protestors should be burdened to cover those costs.

But here is some good news (get it):

Grand Jury Refuses Felonies For Greenpeace Activists In Houston Oil Industry Protest | CleanTechnica

I think even the current USSC might strike these laws down. :shrug:

What laws? Did you actually read this? They were arrested for blocking a highway and road ways. Felony charges were dismissed not misdemeanors.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
If electric was a cheap alternative a roll back wouldn't be required

The standards only require more efficient fuel economy, not necessarily electric. From the article:

"According to the rule, the standards will increase to 40.4 miles per gallon by vehicle model year 2026, about six miles per gallon fewer than the 2012 rule."


A number of the protests have done damage and left their garbage laying around. No one but the protestors should be burdened to cover those costs.

Often, the reports on this ignore that protesters are typically eager to clean it up but are forced off the grounds. But it is true that it is ironic and terrible that protesters trash these sites despite beliefs in environmental protection.

However, this seems like a red herring, since destruction of private property and violent protest is already a crime and the issue is about protesting pipelines. The laws aren't targeting trash cleanup.

The irony is that violent protest appears to be the way to go (if you're white): What Trump’s latest pardon means for the future of the American West

What laws? Did you actually read this? They were arrested for blocking a highway and road ways. Felony charges were dismissed not misdemeanors.

Critical infrastructure laws:
New Texas pipeline protest law is about more than pipelines - Austin Monitor

It was mentioned in the posted article.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
If electric was a cheap alternative a roll back wouldn't be required






A number of the protests have done damage and left their garbage laying around. No one but the protestors should be burdened to cover those costs.



What laws? Did you actually read this? They were arrested for blocking a highway and road ways. Felony charges were dismissed not misdemeanors.


"They were arrested and charged with a felony by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office under Texas’s controversial new anti-protest law. This week, none were indicted on this charge by a Harris County grand jury. A grand jury refused to issue felony indictments against the activists and all involved."
 

Shad

Veteran Member
"They were arrested and charged with a felony by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office under Texas’s controversial new anti-protest law. This week, none were indicted on this charge by a Harris County grand jury. A grand jury refused to issue felony indictments against the activists and all involved."

Quoting something which does not contain the law in question means nothing. Cite the law.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
The standards only require more efficient fuel economy, not necessarily electric. From the article:

"According to the rule, the standards will increase to 40.4 miles per gallon by vehicle model year 2026, about six miles per gallon fewer than the 2012 rule."

My point was about alternatives to regulating increasing costs to the consumer

Often, the reports on this ignore that protesters are typically eager to clean it up but are forced off the grounds. But it is true that it is ironic and terrible that protesters trash these sites despite beliefs in environmental protection.

Seems ad hoc to being removed from property.


However, this seems like a red herring, since destruction of private property and violent protest is already a crime and the issue is about protesting pipelines. The laws aren't targeting trash cleanup.

Some of those laws do cover property damage and trespassing.

The irony is that violent protest appears to be the way to go (if you're white): What Trump’s latest pardon means for the future of the American West [/quote]

Read your source.



https://www.austinmonitor.com/stori...ine-protest-law-is-about-more-than-pipelines/

The link within the link isn't a law.

It was mentioned in the posted article.

No it wasn't. No link to the law nor does it even name the law. It just calls it an anti-protest law which is biased framing.
 
Top