Condemning All Living Anger Over Us Supreme Court Ruling On Climate Us Supreme Court

Earlier in the day, the court issued a ruling in West Virginia v EPA limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate emissions from fossil fuel power plants in a major environmental case with far-reaching implications. This has been described as a “catastrophic” result by environmental lawyers, climate scientists and activists. One with far-reaching implications for the future of the country and the world. “At this point, for those in positions of power to deny the urgency and dangers of the climate crisis is to condemn everyone alive today and generations to come to life in a sick and poor world,” said Ginger Cassady. executive director of the Rainforest Action Network. The Conservative majority in the court voted 6-3 in favor of West Virginia’s top coal producer in a controversial lawsuit originally filed by 20 other attorney generals, who sued the EPA for having less regulatory power over existing power plants. authorization by Congress under the Clean Air Act. In the ruling, the conservative majority of the court ruled that the clean air law allows for nothing more than the immediate regulation of power plants. “Global climate change is the underlying environmental challenge of our time,” said Frank Rambo, a senior lawyer who leads the energy program at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “And the United States is a major contributor to this worldwide. “The ability of our federal government to handle our contribution to climate change is at stake.” Today’s ruling by a radical, pro-pollution Supreme Court severely undermines @EPA’s power to do its job: to protect the environment. In this way, the Court has succumbed to the polluters who try to poison the air our children breathe and the water they drink with impunity. – Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 30, 2022 The decision is likely to create problems for Joe Biden’s climate targets, which include cleaning up the grid to meet the national 100% no-carbon target by 2035 and zero by 2050. In a statement, the president responded to the ruling: “The decision of the Supreme Court of West Virginia against the EPA is another disastrous ruling that aims to push our country backwards. “While this decision threatens to damage our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and fight climate change, I will not back down from using my legitimate principles to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.” The EPA also issued a response saying it was considering the court ruling: “The EPA is committed to using the full range of its existing principles to protect public health and significantly reduce environmental pollution, which is in line with the developing economy. clean energy “. Sarah Jordaan, an assistant professor who researches environmental life cycle assessments at Johns Hopkins University, said it was important to remember that this decision would not remove climate dynamics in states that “use their power” to turn to clean energy. “What really matters is the ability to enforce change in the states out there that have large fossil fuel resources and are determined to continue using those technologies that bring those resources,” Jordaan said. Six right-wing extremists at SCOTUS have dismantled the EPA’s ability to fight climate change by removing their ability to devise emission ceilings under the Clean Air Act. This is a crisis of legitimacy. Time to put it all on the table. Terms of office for judges. Now. – Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 30, 2022 But there is an obvious limit to how much can be done without national intervention. “If we think about the overall U.S. portfolio and try to reduce emissions across the country, there is so much you can do without a national strategy,” said David Konisky, a professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report found that unless countries around the world cut emissions aggressively, limiting global warming to 1.5 C – compared to pre-industrial levels – would be unattainable. If this limit is exceeded, human and environmental damage from climate change will become extremely dangerous, affecting almost every aspect of human life, furthering massive climate migration and making adaptation everywhere increasingly difficult. The regulation of emissions from power plants is a vital part of climate mitigation, as the energy sector is the second largest polluter that causes global warming in the US, accounting for about 25% of national emissions. Now Konisky says the EPA will have to return to the “draw board” to try to come up with a federal program that the court can approve. Meanwhile, experts note that the domino effect of the non-rapid elimination of national greenhouse gas emissions will fall disproportionately in black, brown and indigenous communities, as the worsening climate crisis deepens racial and social differences. “There are still so many avenues for climate justice, but what we are seeing is a Supreme Court that is, I would call them ‘Supreme Climate Negatives,’ trying to put themselves in a position to make decisions,” the United States said. Climate Action Network CEO Keya Chatterjee. “This sends a message that they want to make it harder for the federal government to protect people in communities where the fossil fuel industry is currently performing.” “Decisions like the WV v EPA make it clear how much the system is set against us. “A supreme court on the side of the fossil fuel industry for the health and safety of its people is against life and illegal,” wrote the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate organization. The Supreme Court passed last week disregarding the vast popular majorities for choices, weapons and climate. Our job is to be the reaction. At the polls, and against the companies that financed all this. We need to make majorities matter. – Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) June 30, 2022 Climate activists and groups like these are urging the Biden government and the president himself to turn to the executive to enact climate justice policies and expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court. The result of this decision is a call for accountability for a section of the federal government that operates largely out of control. “Any decision to suspend climate action is outrageous, as we are already in crisis,” Chatterjee said. “It’s time for them to find their backbone, find their guts and make the decisions they need to make about the climate crisis. “And it’s also time to build this foundation.”

title: " Condemning All Living Anger Over Us Supreme Court Ruling On Climate Us Supreme Court " ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-27” author: “Joyce Weigle”

Earlier in the day, the court issued a ruling in West Virginia v EPA limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate emissions from fossil fuel power plants in a major environmental case with far-reaching implications. This has been described as a “catastrophic” result by environmental lawyers, climate scientists and activists. One with far-reaching implications for the future of the country and the world. “At this point, for those in positions of power to deny the urgency and dangers of the climate crisis is to condemn everyone alive today and generations to come to life in a sick and poor world,” said Ginger Cassady. executive director of the Rainforest Action Network. The Conservative majority in the court voted 6-3 in favor of West Virginia’s top coal producer in a controversial lawsuit originally filed by 20 other attorney generals, who sued the EPA for having less regulatory power over existing power plants. authorization by Congress under the Clean Air Act. In the ruling, the conservative majority of the court ruled that the clean air law allows for nothing more than the immediate regulation of power plants. “Global climate change is the underlying environmental challenge of our time,” said Frank Rambo, a senior lawyer who leads the energy program at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “And the United States is a major contributor to this worldwide. “The ability of our federal government to handle our contribution to climate change is at stake.” Today’s ruling by a radical, pro-pollution Supreme Court severely undermines @EPA’s power to do its job: to protect the environment. In this way, the Court has succumbed to the polluters who try to poison the air our children breathe and the water they drink with impunity. – Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 30, 2022 The decision is likely to create problems for Joe Biden’s climate targets, which include cleaning up the grid to meet the national 100% no-carbon target by 2035 and zero by 2050. In a statement, the president responded to the ruling: “The decision of the Supreme Court of West Virginia against the EPA is another disastrous ruling that aims to push our country backwards. “While this decision threatens to damage our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and fight climate change, I will not back down from using my legitimate principles to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.” The EPA also issued a response saying it was considering the court ruling: “The EPA is committed to using the full range of its existing principles to protect public health and significantly reduce environmental pollution, which is in line with the developing economy. clean energy “. Sarah Jordaan, an assistant professor who researches environmental life cycle assessments at Johns Hopkins University, said it was important to remember that this decision would not remove climate dynamics in states that “use their power” to turn to clean energy. “What really matters is the ability to enforce change in the states out there that have large fossil fuel resources and are determined to continue using those technologies that bring those resources,” Jordaan said. Six right-wing extremists at SCOTUS have dismantled the EPA’s ability to fight climate change by removing their ability to devise emission ceilings under the Clean Air Act. This is a crisis of legitimacy. Time to put it all on the table. Terms of office for judges. Now. – Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 30, 2022 But there is an obvious limit to how much can be done without national intervention. “If we think about the overall U.S. portfolio and try to reduce emissions across the country, there is so much you can do without a national strategy,” said David Konisky, a professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report found that unless countries around the world cut emissions aggressively, limiting global warming to 1.5 C – compared to pre-industrial levels – would be unattainable. If this limit is exceeded, human and environmental damage from climate change will become extremely dangerous, affecting almost every aspect of human life, furthering massive climate migration and making adaptation everywhere increasingly difficult. The regulation of emissions from power plants is a vital part of climate mitigation, as the energy sector is the second largest polluter that causes global warming in the US, accounting for about 25% of national emissions. Now Konisky says the EPA will have to return to the “draw board” to try to come up with a federal program that the court can approve. Meanwhile, experts note that the domino effect of the non-rapid elimination of national greenhouse gas emissions will fall disproportionately in black, brown and indigenous communities, as the worsening climate crisis deepens racial and social differences. “There are still so many avenues for climate justice, but what we are seeing is a Supreme Court that is, I would call them ‘Supreme Climate Negatives,’ trying to put themselves in a position to make decisions,” the United States said. Climate Action Network CEO Keya Chatterjee. “This sends a message that they want to make it harder for the federal government to protect people in communities where the fossil fuel industry is currently performing.” “Decisions like the WV v EPA make it clear how much the system is set against us. “A supreme court on the side of the fossil fuel industry for the health and safety of its people is against life and illegal,” wrote the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate organization. The Supreme Court passed last week disregarding the vast popular majorities for choices, weapons and climate. Our job is to be the reaction. At the polls, and against the companies that financed all this. We need to make majorities matter. – Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) June 30, 2022 Climate activists and groups like these are urging the Biden government and the president himself to turn to the executive to enact climate justice policies and expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court. The result of this decision is a call for accountability for a section of the federal government that operates largely out of control. “Any decision to suspend climate action is outrageous, as we are already in crisis,” Chatterjee said. “It’s time for them to find their backbone, find their guts and make the decisions they need to make about the climate crisis. “And it’s also time to build this foundation.”