Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

[Somerville]

A win for the good guys for once with only the "usual suspects" Scalia and Thomas, voting against

Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

The Supreme Court on Tuesday resurrected Environmental Protection Agency rules targeting air pollution that drifts across state borders, handing a victory to the Obama administration on one of its major environmental efforts.

The agency for years, under two administrations, has struggled to carry out a directive under the federal Clean Air Act to protect downwind states from pollution generated in other states, mostly from coal-fired power plants. The EPA’s rules from 2011 were challenged by a coalition of upwind states and industry, which prevailed in lower courts.

But the Supreme Court justices ruled 6 to 2 that the latest effort could be implemented

Now in a nation where each state could make up its own pollution rules, the 'down-wind' states would be **** out of luck. Same in a nation governed under libertarian principles advocating real "free markets" I think it is a good thing we don't live in the utopia that some Americans advocate

 

[cpgrad08]

A win for the good guys for once with only the "usual suspects" Scalia and Thomas, voting against



Now in a nation where each state could make up its own pollution rules, the 'down-wind' states would be **** out of luck. Same in a nation governed under libertarian principles advocating real "free markets" I think it is a good thing we don't live in the utopia that some Americans advocate

Good thing we don't live in the Utopia you would advocate.

 

[apdst]

More government control of the private sector. Just what we need!

 

[Somerville]

More government control of the private sector. Just what we need!

Yep, never mind the health consequences of air pollution - they don't cost us anything, amirite?

 

[TheNextEra]

More government control of the private sector. Just what we need!

I thought you believed in states rights so why should states have to deal with pollution generated from other states? If those states that polluted other states regulated themselves from this happening, there wouldn't BE a need for the feds to get involved. Thank the states that are polluting for this.

 

[apdst]

I thought you believed in states rights so why should states have to deal with pollution generated from other states? If those states that polluted other states regulated themselves from this happening, there wouldn't BE a need for the feds to get involved. Thank the states that are polluting for this.

Yep, never mind the health consequences of air pollution - they don't cost us anything, amirite?

Are you both so naive to believe it's really about clean air water?

 

[Deuce]

Are you both so naive to believe it's really about clean air water?

Are you really so delusional that you see conspiracy in the idea that Iowa shouldn't be able to dump all sorts of nasty stuff into Missouri's air?

 

[longview]

Coal plants are a really dirty way of generating power,
but the consequences of shutting down a bunch of them, may have negative
impacts as well.
Starting in about 1990, we should have been building about 200 nuclear plants.
Because of Government regulation, coal plants were built instead.
I worry we could be shutting down power plants, before we have replacement capacity,
and what that could do to electric rates.

 

[Paxaeon]

More government control of the private sector. Just what we need!

`
When the private sector operates in a manner that is either irresponsible (which is quite often) or without care to the human factors involved, that sort of begs for government involvement.
`

 

[Somerville]

His written dissent in this case has a really big boo boo.

Justice Antonin Scalia makes ‘hugely embarrassing’ blunder in latest dissentThe arch conservative jurist wrote that the majority’s decision runs counter to a unanimous ruling by the court in 2001, mistakenly claiming that the court struck down the agency’s ability to override cost considerations when setting regulations.

TPM’s Sahil Kapur quoted the dissent, “This is not the first time EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted EPA’s contention that it could consider costs in setting [National Ambient Air Quality Standards].”

The dissent — in which Scalia was joined by fellow right-leaning justice Clarence Thomas — was factually inaccurate, however, because the EPA was actually arguing the opposite in the 2001 case. The agency argued that the benefits to the population of reducing coal-generated air pollution outweigh considerations of cost. It was the trucking industry that argued that curbing pollution poses an undue economic burden on polluters.

The author of that unanimous 2001 decision was, in fact, Scalia.

If you don't like the source, please ignore the fact that Raw Story has a Scribd link to the actual dissent because we all know the left never ever provides accurate information :roll:

 

[AJiveMan]

Coal plants are a really dirty way of generating power,
but the consequences of shutting down a bunch of them, may have negative
impacts as well.
Starting in about 1990, we should have been building about 200 nuclear plants.
Because of Government regulation, coal plants were built instead.
I worry we could be shutting down power plants, before we have replacement capacity,
and what that could do to electric rates.

Not going to happen. In my village, they adapted an old coal fired generator to operate off of natural gas which was piped in.

Not to worry, they pretty much have a handle on it. I'd be more worried about the aging power grid system, e.g. aging power lines, sub stations and transformers. Who remembers the recent brown outs and black outs out east?