![]() “The Supreme Court’s illogical decision to hamstring the EPA’s ability to limit carbon pollution from power plants makes it much harder for the agency to achieve its core mission to protect human health and the environment,” Dan Lashof, director of the World Resources Institution United States, said in an email statement to Popular Science. Opponents of the Clean Power Plan believe these types of decisions should be left to US Congress.Ĭlimate and conservation groups described the ruling as logically inconsistent. Nineteen states and multiple power companies, led by West Virginia, argued that the EPA doesn’t have authority to enforce a clean energy transition or set a “cap and trade” program that would set a ceiling on how much carbon dioxide an industry can emit and financially punish those who go overboard. What today’s SCOTUS ruling essentially does is slam that door back shut. However, last year an appellate court tossed out the proposed policy, opening the door for more effective regulations like the Clean Power Plan to come back in and provide structure to a climate overhaul of US-produced power. ![]() Following this, former President Donald Trump proposed the lax Affordable Clean Energy rule that would have led to a growth in emissions from power sources. ![]() Since climate change and its link to carbon dioxide emissions weren’t as publicly well understood at this time, the act fails to mention the potent greenhouse gas. ![]() Opponents argued that the EPA was stepping out of their bounds granted to them by the Clean Air Act, which regulates air pollutants from stationary buildings as well as mobile sources. This plan was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2016 and then fully repealed in 2019 by the Trump administration. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |