Posted on 06/27/2022 1:17:51 AM PDT by Libloather
Climate regulation could be the next Democratic priority to fall to the Supreme Court.
The court released two major decisions this week - on guns and abortion - and is expected to soon rule on a case that has major implications for what powers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has to regulate climate change.
Experts say a court ruling in favor of those seeking to curb the EPA’s authority could stunt the agency’s ability to prevent climate change from worsening.
“The more tools the court takes away from the EPA, under the Clean Air Act to address greenhouse gas emissions, the harder it’s going to be for the United States to do an effective job of contributing to the world’s efforts to limit climate change,” said Robert Glicksman, an environmental law professor at George Washington University.
The court in February heard arguments focusing on the scope of the EPA’s powers to enact climate regulations.
The case was brought by several states led by West Virginia, who are seeking to preemptively block the Biden administration from setting standards that are likely to result in a shift away from coal plants and towards those powered by cleaner energy sources.
Two coal companies and North Dakota also filed separate petitions asking the high court to take up similar questions.
West Virginia argued the EPA doesn’t have the authority to set standards that encompass an entire sector of the energy industry and, rather, is limited to only setting restrictions on individual power plants.
While the distinction may sound technical, experts say it could have major implications for how much planet-warming carbon dioxide ends up in the atmosphere.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
the USSC might stop a tyrannical takeover by the LEFT
lets hope so
Different subject altogether, I know, but please extol the benefits of the Department of Education. Abolish or reform?
No matter what the hell they do...they will NOT change the climate. It’s part of Mother Nature’s job.
The EPA should not have such power, and the SC should rule against it. But I’m afraid the court will want throw a bone to the left after the R v W ruling. I doubt that Roberts will rule against the EPA.
That would make for an absolutely beautiful hat trick.
- crush gun grabbing by NY and several other blue states
- strike down Roe
- Clip the EPA’s wings and no longer allow them to sabotage American business as much to sacrifice to Gaia.
That would make for an absolutely beautiful term for the SCOTUS.
Correction good sir. TWO mansions at the beach. He’s got one in Maaaaatha’s Vinyaaaad up in New England. He’s building another giant energy sucking mansion on the waterfront in Hawaii.
Carbon dioxide is produced by all human activity. If they can label it a pollutant, and gain from that the ability to regulate it, they have given themselves the ability to control all aspects of human life, down to how many children you have to how much you exercise.
The EPA has been empire building since it’s beginning.
One subtle example I’m familiar with is testing and regulation. I worked in chemistry labs for many years, inluding some environmental lab work.
If you look at the regulated limits you see that as testing equipment and detection limits improve, the allowable limit follows the detection limit down.
What used to be allowable at the part per million level suddenly becomes only allowable at the part per billion level, then part per trillion, etc.
It has very little to do with what level is actually toxic to the environment. It becomes a way to regulate products and behavior. It’s a hammer and the rest of us are nails.
Not true. Tennessee is down wind from Arkansas and Texas and states further west. What Kentucky puts in the rivers flows through our state. What's states up north put in the rivers flows down the Mississippi.
EPA does need to be a central authority. States weren't doing the job before the EPA.
But I'll say it again, there are abuses, and it needs to be reined in. Maybe the whole rule making authority where agencies propose new or tighter rules and Congress rubber stamps them needs to be rethought and changed.
That is what the federal courts are for....interstate disputes.
“The EPA has done some good things.”
No, it hasn’t. EPA is gestapo.
We have common law trespass legislation to take care of pollution. Dumping garbage (pollution) onto my private property is a trespass. Courts have recognized trespass for hundreds of years as a legitimate reason for a lawsuit.
You want courts legislating from the bench? You need federal laws for this. And you need a federal agency to monitor it. An agency that has the ability to go monitor pollutants in all states.
Please show me where the EPA exists in the US Constitution.
Environmental Regulation And The Constitution
You might disagree with these court rulings, but even if you somehow got the EPA disbanded using a 10th amendment argument, I suspect, we would shortly see a constitutional amendment authorizing Federal involvement in Environmental issues.
They are not atheists, they literally worship climate change. To understand them, you must first recognize they are a religion.
“they literally worship climate change”
Right. IIRC, Ann Coulter wrote a book about that. “Godless”, I think. Maybe 20 years ago.
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.