> They are technicalities, because the intent of the law is clean air.

That’s not how laws work, especially the Clean Air Act. “There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs.” (https://ozgengungor.medium.com/one-of-those-quotes-thomas-so...).

The Clean Air Act was not designed to achieve cleaner air at any cost, but instead to achieve targeted pollution control that would have the greatest value at acceptable cost. The modern structure of the act was set in place in 1970 under Nixon, and is full of legislative compromises to balance incremental benefits to air quality against burden on industry.

▲

solid_fuel a day ago | parent [-]

> The Clean Air Act was not designed to achieve cleaner air at any cost

You will notice we are not talking "at any cost". We are talking about a very specific cost to AI hyperscalers.

> full of legislative compromises to balance incremental benefits to air quality against burden on industry.

These technicalities are being exploited for the benefit of approximately 10 people, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Your talking points are old and exhausted.

	▲	rayiner a day ago \| parent [-]
		> These technicalities are being exploited for the benefit of approximately 10 people Legislative compromises aren’t “technicalities.” The exceptions are as much a part of the laws as any other part. If they didn’t exist the laws wouldn’t have passed in the first place. > Your talking points are old and exhausted Your talking points—treating law as just an expression of intent rather than a reticulated framework—are third world mentality.