Multi-member districts with ranked choice voting is also a thing that could help with minority representation.

I'd also be happy with more widespread use of the Alaska system with open primaries and ranked choice voting for a limited number of top candidates (though I might prefer 5 instead of Alaska's 4).

An alternative to proportional representation is the "efficiency gap" from Nick Stephanopoulos, which might be more consistent with historical US electoral practice while also solving the key problems. Sadly, the Supremes found the concept too complicated. chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/public_law_a...

I wrote about the glaring flaws (legal and scientific) in the EPA’s Endangerment proposal here: substack.com/home/post/p-.... I doubt that the final reg will be much better though rumor is they gave up on the science. (I helped write and defend the original Finding)

And the legal justification is almost as bad as the scientific one! substack.com/home/post/p-...

Thank you for linking to my writing!

Science & Nature are also particularly interested in the exciting cutting edge of science... which is often less stable than the more pedestrian work of strengthening the foundations.

Darn, I wanted that middle name! I guess you have a longer relationship with Endangerment than I do... but I spent many many hours with it at EPA. substack.com/home/post/p-...

Yes. The Endangerment Finding survived in the DC Circuit in 2012 (they said it was "unambiguously correct"!), and the Court will absolutely thrash Trump EPA's repeal. I document some of the law & science flaws in the Trump EPA's proposal here: substack.com/home/post/p-...

And they don't only get the science wrong, they get the law wrong too. If you want to read more about it from someone who helped write and defend the finding, I have been documenting it on my substack: substack.com/home/post/p-...

Thank you for prioritizing the Finding when you were president. If you are curious about how it was in the trenches, I've written an EPA-scientist-eye view of the story of the finding here: substack.com/home/post/p-...

Back in my day, we used to get everything up on the federal register by midnight of the day the reg was signed. Of course, back in my day, we used to believe in the rule of law, too...

I would disagree that CAA HHG regs have been impact-less. They haven’t had the same impact as a strong economy wide law could have had, but they have resulted in substantial reductions (I have plans to do an analysis of the climate impacts of reductions estimated from RIAs of CAA GHG regs)

3) Renewables will continue their penetration of the electricity market, just more slowly
4) This may reopen AEP v. Connecticut (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...), allowing public nuisance lawsuits if EPA is not regulation GHGs.

1) the same orgs and States that were parties to Mass v. EPA will surely sue again. They will almost certainly win at the appellate level, the question is the Supreme Court does.
2) State regs are already in place: RGGI for the northeast, AB32 for California, actions in Oregon & Washington.