Posted on 05/23/2024 2:00:03 AM PDT by Libloather
Alabama is spearheading a coalition of 12 Republican-led states in a federal lawsuit against five Democrat-run states, alleging the latter are trying to coerce the former into complying with strict climate-conscious policies that could imperil their residents' access to affordable energy.
The filing was made at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday as the plaintiffs argued that Democrat-led states California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island are essentially forcing residents of politically opposed states to feel repercussions of their restrictions and, therefore, are dictating national energy policy.
"California and New Jersey and the defendant states are trying to make national energy policy through state laws," said Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, one state official who is party to the lawsuit. "And if the Supreme Court does not step in, they may succeed."
"If the defendant states' laws have their desired effects, fossil fuel energy companies across the nation will either be hit with massive damages or have to change their policies directly. And, those defendant states will affect the availability of cheap, affordable energy in our states," he said.
"One state does not have the right to control policy in another state."
Of criticisms that it may not be apropos to escalate such a case immediately to the Supreme Court, Kobach said this is a rare instance where it is needed. He said the high bench has always had jurisdiction over interstate quarrels and that the "opposing interests" in this filing are especially stark.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
About time someone
got around to challenging
Cali’s setting precidence
and influencing EPA’s
setting of emission
standards.
Just because Cali has
millions of cars on the
road, doesn’t necessarily
create an emergency on
Wyoming’s part.
I hope the SC see’s fit
to decide in favor. Our
nutso gov here in NM
wants to be mini me
to Cali.
Climate hysteria is out of control.
Any idea which the other 11 states are?
I even went to the link and read the article and could not find the information aside from Alabama which is leading this.
I’m surprised not one congressman or senator has demanded a project plan for mitigating the effects of CO2 on a global scale. They do realize that this cannot be localized. Also, after 40 years there still isn’t a plan?
I’ll gladly support action to mitigate “climate change” if:
1. There is a plan in place for schedule.
2. There is a plan in place for cost.
3. There is a plan in place for scope.
4. There is a plan in place for risk.
5. There is a plan in place for resources required.
Also, I want to see a plan for mitigation of risk. How would we know if whoever is executing this plan doesn’t coverup if risks become issues. For example, in the process of cooling the planet, the result is out of variance, resulting in a massive freeze. (aka: Snowpiercer Syndrome)
However, if “they” want to do something now, I would say start with pollution, preferably water as it is our most relied upon resource to keep every living organism alive.
Anything other than this is just a load of crap. If confronted by a lib over this, just call them a moron and be on your way.
Not Me!
Perhaps you forget that it is our government that will be coming up with those plans and paying for those plans.
Our government always underestimates the cost of everything by at least half.
Our government always over promises and over pays.
The EPA needs to be eliminated. It always exceeds its legislated authority and it is a constitutional violation from the start.
About damned time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.