The goal of the clean air act has always been to protect the immediate health of persons. That means from breathing in toxic stuff that will hurt you.
There were ozone layer protections in the bill which aren't struck down in this one, and that seem to be more an example of this:
Its only when you take a bunch of leaps that you get to "well this protects health because the statistical chances of hurricanes may slightly decrease".
And by the way, the effects of climate change are a lot more than hurricanes, and also a lot more than "may" happen.
The Supreme Court case is about gun free zones. This is a little different, because of the strong scientific evidence for climate change. And schools, part of local government, were being regulated by the federal government. I don't see how this is analogous.
stuff in the air the either hurts us when we breathe it in
Carbon dioxide actually does that, but not at any level near where it is admittedly.
or that causes acid rain.
Water vapor actually does that (with other molecules though).
Regulating the byproducts of breathing though is a terrifying concept, but that is effectively what continued regulation will ultimately lead to. How long until each individual human has to participate in a cap and trade program for the privilege of living?
This argument seems a little ridiculous. Why do you think that breathing is a realistic thing we would try to regulate in Atlasia? The Clean Air Act has been around for decades and that hasn't happened. "How long" is apparently a very long time.
