this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024

168 points (100.0% liked)

Interesting Global News

2655 readers

312 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.

Post guidelines

Title format

Post title should mirror the news source title.

URL format

Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.

[Opinion] prefix

Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.

Rules

1. English only

Title and associated content has to be in English.

2. No social media posts

Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.

3. Respectful communication

All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.

4. Inclusivity

Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

5. Ad hominem attacks

Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.

6. Off-topic tangents

Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.

7. Instance rules may apply

If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

!legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
!technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Interesting articles, projects, and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.
!europe@feddit.org - News and information from Europe.

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX@lemmy.zip

168

US appeals court kills ban on plastic containers contaminated with PFAS (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 months ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/globalnews@lemmy.zip

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Conservative fifth circuit overturns EPA’s ban prohibiting Inhance from using manufacturing process creating toxic compound

Archived version: https://archive.ph/xuz0R

all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] hexaflexagonbear@hexbear.net 34 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Oh thank god, I was worried that public health would cause my investments to grow 0.01% slower.

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 10 points 8 months ago

SCOTUS: nobody is forcing you to purchase from businesses that use these plastic containers. Therefore nobody has standing to sue

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago

Conservative fifth circuit is the headline, Grauniad. Don’t bury it.

[–] StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

Imagine working for Inhance and high-fiving your coworkers because a court said it's legal for you to continue contaminating humans and the environment with a harmful chemical.

What kind of sick motherfucker sleeps well after that?

[–] Chuymatt@beehaw.org 12 points 8 months ago

Dollars over lives…

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago

Just another day in America.

[–] FnordPrefect@hexbear.net 4 points 8 months ago

doomer "Sure appreciate that the government functions just well enough to make it illegal for it to function at all..."

freedom-and-democracy "Sure thing bro!"

[+] ryannathans@aussie.zone -8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

To be fair if you actually read it the EPA invoked the wrong legislation, it should be banned but they didn't ban in a legal manner

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not really. The argument came down to the Section 5 definition of "new", since other arguments were ignored as moot. It was a typical pro business decision that argued on semantics instead of law.

The court even signaled that they would reject it under Section 6 if EPA were to use it due to the need "to weigh the costs to businesses and the overall economy before shutting down an ongoing manufacturing process".

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If they have had this process for decades it's not new though, the information about the harms is new. You could argue the EPA doesn't have enough power when something is provably toxic but this ruling isn't surprising, especially when it would create significant case law

[–] ApexHunter@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

All you have to do is lie about producing toxic chemicals for as long as possible. Checkmate epa!

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago

Gigabrain strat 🧠

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 months ago

The Section 5 states that it has to be "new chemical substance or significant new uses of a chemical substance". But since neither "new" or "significant new use" is defined, the court chosen the definition that suited their preferred outcome.

Inhance asserts that “new” means “having recently come into existence,” or “not previously existing.”

By contrast, the EPA offers a different definition of “new,” as meaning “not previously known” or “known but a short time although perhaps existing before.”

All of these definitions are valid. So if the court wanted to avoid creating significant case law, they should have rejected the first argument as not significant and moved to the other arguments. It was a typical decision where the count had an outcome they wanted and then looked for the reasons to justify it instead of looking at the case blindly as they should.