[Vision2020] 2-10-16 NYTimes"Supreme Court’s Blow to Emissions Efforts May Imperil Paris Climate Accord"

[Ted Moffett]

In 2007, during the years of the anthropogenic global warming denying Bush
administration, with its attempts to censor NASA climate scientist James
Hansen, which he compared to the censorship of science in the Soviet Union
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/censoring-scientists
the SCOTUS ruled that the EPA has authority to regulate CO2 emissions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html?_r=0

In fact, according to this New York Times article from 2007, it states:

"The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority
to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal."
-------------------------------
Now,in 2016 the SCOTUS rules to place on hold regulations on CO2 emissions,
a hold we can only hope is temporary.  This ruling undermines
the international climate agreement forged in Paris this year, given that
if the US will not live up to its pledges to reduce CO2 emissions, other
nations will be less compelled to reduce their emissions, as this New York
Times article from today indicates:

Supreme Court’s Blow to Emissions Efforts May Imperil Paris Climate Accord

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/us/politics/carbon-emissions-paris-climate-accord.html

More this 2016 SCOTUS ruling on US CO2 regulations:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/9/obama-carbon-emissions-rule-halted-supreme-court/

Obama carbon emissions rule halted by Supreme Court
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/9/obama-carbon-emissions-rule-halted-supreme-court/>

By Stephen Dinan <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/stephen-dinan/> -
The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 9, 2016

The Supreme Court <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/supreme-court/>
halted the EPA
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/environmental-protection-agency/>’s
major anti-global warming initiative late Tuesday evening, dealing a major
blow to President Obama’s hopes of overseeing a green energy transition in
his final year in office.

The 5-4 decision by the court
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/supreme-court/> puts the Environmental
Protection Agency
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/environmental-protection-agency/>’s
regulation on hold while a lower appeals court hears states’ challenge to
the rules.
More than two dozen states sued to stop the rules, which were intended to
control greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.

The EPA
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/environmental-protection-agency/>
called the court <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/supreme-court/>’s
decision disappointing but said it won’t stop the agency
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/environmental-protection-agency/>’s
determination to press forward.

“You can’t stay climate change, and you can’t stay climate action,”
spokeswoman Melissa J. Harrison said. “Millions of people are demanding we
confront the risks posed by climate change. And we will do just that.”
Energy advocates had predicted the rules would force a major shift in the
economy, pushing energy companies and consumers toward solar and wind power
and away from the fossil fuels that currently underpin most electricity in
the U.S. Estimates suggested consumers’ power bills would leap at least 25
percent, with some estimates putting the hike much higher.
---------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20160210/722ca46e/attachment.html>