Getty Images
A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab."
By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court's four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.
The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030.
Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2.
The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.
Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.
Implementation of the rules is considered essential to the United States meeting emissions-reduction targets in a global climate agreement signed in Paris last month. The Obama administration and environmental groups also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.
To convince the high court to temporarily halt the plan, opponents had to convince the justices that there was a "fair prospect" the court would strike down the rule. The court also had to consider whether denying a stay would cause irreparable harm to the states and utility companies affected.
12 comments:
This article reports how President Obama's petition regarding climate change was postponed by the supreme court. Unfortunately, this is considered as a 'win' by 27 mostly republican states. The Obama administration mentioned that this would also create employment. However, seemingly opponents presented a strong case
This article seems familiar, in the sense that the U.S. Gov't is promising something good to be possible, but the one thing that's stopping it is another part of the government. It is good though that they're referencing Paris and the attempts at being better environmentally speaking. I guess all we can do now is hope for the best, and hope that the courts make the right decision.
-ElizabethPiper Phillips
Climate change is a topic that has caused division within the U.S. government because of its impact on many businesses. As the article states, many states are wary about moving forward with cutting back on emissions because it could negatively impact coal, oil and gas companies. Companies that sustain the economy of many states. It is a difficult position to be in for the individuals who are in these sectors. Although the article does mention that many more jobs will be made by the new plan, it is not easy to predict whether or not this transition will outweigh the cost. The Republican party and the Democratic party once again seem to be fighting over what is wrong with the other parties solution, instead of coming to terms with a consensus. Time can only tell if this petition will make it.
The halt on enforcement for the climate change reform that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United States could result in a worsening of global climate change as the government argues over how to successfully impose new regulations to improve climate conditions and regulate economic prosperity of the power plants. As one of the leading countries in the world, and having agreed to implement new rules for emissions-reduction it may be time for international intervention in the US to push the needed regulations. With outside influence the powerful money hungry government officials intervening will have to back down against the international reform that is being pushed to fix the extensive damage already done. The slow proceedings are already affecting the US carbon dioxide emissions as these power plants pump out emissions daily. A firmer grip on environmental reform needs to be mandatory in the US to cooperate with the rest of the worlds attempts at emissions reduction.
This issue is one that is all too common in the United States Government. It seems that government officials are more concerned with shutting down initiatives other party's support than on resolving the issues these initiatives are meant to. The problem is and has always been climate change. The only way to combat this growing problem is to change our means of production and lifestyles. That begins with the way plants operate within this country. Rather than concerning themselves on the possibility of this plan not going through and their compliance being viewed as a wasted effort, the 27 Republican states should focus on the benefits that will occur if carbon emissions are reduced by 1/3.
-Ruben Pamies
This is and seems to always be the problem with the United States government. Because of general disagreement between parties, Congress and government as a whole goes into gridlock and nothing is every accomplished. This issue will now have to wait even longer for a final decision from the Supreme Court with the passing of Justice Scalia, and with only 8 members of the Court it will be hard-presses to come to a general consensus and ruling. This is going to be a long process in order to get this issue resolved, and by the time this plan is implemented (if it ever is) it may be too late to curb emissions. We should be focusing on the benefits that this plan may create instead of trying to delay it because of possible economic costs it could incur.
-Marrina Gallant
This article at least made me feel better. Even though the government did not completely agree to the practice, America is thinking about the environmental issue. As we talked about the global warming issue few weeks ago. I think it is very important to practice environmental friendly policy. However, for now, people cannot do anything with it. What we can do is just wait for the government to make correct decision.
-Takao Suzuki
It is very important to practice environmental friendly policy. This article reports how President Obama's petition regarding climate change was postponed by the supreme court. The only way to combat this growing problem is to change our means of production and lifestyles. With outside influence the powerful money hungry government officials intervening will have to back down against the international reform that is being pushed to fix the extensive damage already done. As one of the leading countries in the world, and having agreed to implement new rules for emissions-reduction it may be time for international intervention in the US to push the needed regulations.
The recent changes in the world showed people around the globe that governments are really concerned about environmental issues. However, many people try to avoid or discredit questions regarding the environment, which is obvious that they don't believe that humans have a great effect on climate change. Sometimes, they have more of a political background, and so people who are concerned about the future start to question agencies to get polices regarding the environment through. But, when it goes to discussions, politics and self interest come into action. Basically this is what happened during Obama’s Clean Air plan’s case. However, the plan did not go through, as the Republican representatives declined it, which only shows that it is not in their self interest to have policies on environmental cases. Arguments and disagreements between Democrats and Republicans are common on many issues and specifically cases related to the environment.
I found this article particularly interesting, because it clearly displays the agenda of some individuals. Those who were against the plan to reduce CO2 emissions by 1/3, in an attempt to make the planet more livable, were those who had direct interests related to the power plants themselves. It is a clear synopsis that CO2 emissions have polluted the air and contributed to the declination of the ozone layer; and fixing such an issue would act in the better interest of everybody as a whole. Those who combat the forward progress of this plan are those who will have to take things like effort and costs into effect. They do not want to do so. Like many people in positions of power, they are greedy and lazy. They are obviously aware of the potential environmental repercussions of their actions, but it is easier and more profitable to turn a blind eye. It is appalling to me that the cost of losing lives is not as important to these people as the cost of making a much needed change. Come September, they better come up with a plan, and one that goes along with Barack Obama's agenda; because I do not see this issue getting pushed off any longer.
I thought this article was alright, I believe in the ideas of finding new clean energy but to force power plants to stop using what they need to function could really hurt them more than it could help. We need the power plants to function at their highest capacity and although eliminating one third of the carbon dioxide emissions sounds like it will help a lot it raises the question in my head of how is it effecting the power plants. The opposing states depend on the economic activity tied to fossil fuels. This could make power plants spend billions of dollars on complying with rules that will most likely be overturned which is why the courts halted this plan. It would help a lot of people get new clean energy jobs but until the science is done and they find good alternatives I believe it should stay how it is.
I thought that this was an interesting article, where we can observe the main problems to fight against environmental problems. The main problem is that businesses and companies are against the environmental solutions, well, not against, but it would mean a problem for them as their production would not be at full capacity. Trying to eliminate 1/3 of the CO2 for those power plants, would be great and really helpful for the environment, but once again, the problem is that there is people that is not ok with that because they would have to cut production in the power plants, plus what I do not know is, if those cuts in the power plants to help the environment, would have repercussions to us, the humans, because we need those power plants also to work. I guess that they are coming up with a plan to still be able to produce enough plus trying to save that 1/3 of CO2.
Post a Comment