SCOTUS in Congress: On environmental policy, do your job

Reprinted from internal source

The U.S. Supreme Court has sent a strong message to Congress about regulating the country’s environmental policy:

Do your job.

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court ruled 6-3 that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA broad authority to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

“Stopping carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will force a nationwide transition from using coal to power generation could be a wise ‘solution to the crisis of the day,'” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “It is not reasonable that Congress has given the EPA the power to adopt a regulatory project like its own.

Roberts added, “The agency must be directed to clear congressional approval for the power to claim it.”

Proponents of the Obama-era policy argue that the threat of climate change exceeds the limits of governmental authority set by the courts, and they question whether an elected Congress is capable of controlling such an important issue.

“Members of Congress often don’t know enough এবং and know they don’t know enough জন্য to control a matter sensitively,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent.

“The decades-long struggle to protect citizens from corporate polluters is being wiped out by these MAGA extremist judges,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (DN.Y.). Crisis. “

Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online.

“Trying to turn our power generation system from the inside out was incredibly risky for the federal government,” said Sam Cazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Today the Supreme Court ruled that if the government is going to do that, it must be explicitly approved by congressional law rather than directing unelected bureaucrats.”

Myron Abel, director of CEI’s Center for Energy and the Environment, said the court’s ruling reversed its 2007 decision. Massachusetts vs. EPA.

“The Massachusetts case caught that the EPA could use the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions,” Abel said. “The court has now called for the main question doctrine and recognized that Congress has designed the Clean Air Act to control air pollutants and not carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal, natural gas and oil.

“The Biden administration must get clear approval from Congress if it wants to introduce major climate policies that will further raise energy prices,” Abel added.

President Joe Biden has instructed his legal team to work with the judiciary and affected agencies to review the decision and find ways to protect the administration from harmful pollutants for climate change.

“We cannot and will not ignore the threat to public health and the existence of a climate crisis,” Biden said in a press release on Thursday. “Science confirms what we all see with our own eyes – fires, droughts, extreme heat and severe storms are endangering our lives and livelihoods.”

Former President Barack Obama also weighed in, saying no challenge is a big threat to our future without a changing climate.

“Every day, we’re feeling the effects of climate change, and today’s Supreme Court decision is a big step back,” Obama said. Tweeted.

But instead of passing legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, Obama and his team went ahead with a regulatory plan that led to today’s ruling.

The Sierra Club also shared its frustration, calling it a dangerous decision that frustrated the EPA’s efforts to protect communities and families by giving “coal executives and ultra-right politicians exactly what they wanted”.

“For years, the EPA has had a clear authority and duty under the Clean Air Act to effectively reduce climate-disruptive carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuel-burning power plants, as claimed by the public and science,” said Andres Restrepo, Sierra Enrique Attorney. “But Thursday’s decision seriously shrinks that authority and gives way to those in power instead of the people.”

But advocates in the energy sector say their industry is still not out of the extra-regulated EPA wood.

“While this decision clearly reinforces the EPA’s authority to create carbon rules that force the restructuring of the country’s electricity mix, the company has already indicated that it will use all other tools at its disposal to accelerate the shutdown of the coal plant and pursue its agenda.” An industry insider told InsideSource. “If you are concerned about grid reliability and power capacity, Congress must take action and ensure that it is conducting domestic energy policy, not regulators in the EPA.”

Even so, owning one is still beyond the reach of the average person.

“This is a victory for climate and constitutional democracy,” said Drew Bond, president of the Conservative Coalition for Climate (C3) solutions. “Any serious person knows that innovation, not excessive control, is the solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Instead of looking to regulators to impose a top-down mandate, Bond said workers on all sides should ask lawmakers to pass legislation that encourages bottom-up solutions.

“Our climate and independence agenda highlights dozens of steps that Congress can make to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and the expansion of economic freedom,” Bond said of the C3 solution. “Let’s focus on us there. American innovation will not disappoint. “

Chris Woodward

Chris Woodward

Chris Woodward is a reporter with experience in radio and television news and writes about industry and technology.

He is a graduate of Mississippi State University.

Receive notifications of new articles from Chris Woodward and AIER.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.