Supreme Court Slams The Brakes On Obama's Clean Energy Plan

Supreme Court Slams the Brakes on Obama's Clean Energy Plan

Today appeared to be a good day for US President Obama and the environment, what with the unveiling of a moonshot budget, complete with billions to improve the environment (and humanity!). The Supreme Court, however, is not joining in on the fun. Earlier today, the Supreme Court put a temporary block on the Clean Power Plan, a US federal regulation that would require power plants to dramatically reduce emissions. The delay lasts while challenges from corporations and states work their way through the legal system.

The Clean Power Plan would force states to reduce their carbon emissions by 32 per cent by 2030. It's been widely described as the most ambitious plan ever by the US government to reduce the impact of climate change, by addressing the number one cause of carbon emissions: electricity consumption.

Critics claim that it's unrealistic, and that it infringes on states' rights by forcing them to make radical changes to their infrastructure. Five of the nine Supreme Court justices seem to think those arguments have at least some merits, hence the stay on the Clean Power Plan's enforcement until arguments are heard in federal court.

Needless to say, it's not a good sign for the Obama administration, or anyone who doesn't particularly like coal power stations. A temporary stay is exactly that — but with over half of US states lining up to challenge the Clean Power Plan in court, the first act has gone very badly indeed.

[Bloomberg]


Comments

    Nothing will ever happen and we're all going to die. Can't come fast enough.

    Given that he is leaving office soon, he can safely claim that he tried to do something good as a legacy and blamed the states for not letting that go through. I am not saying he has bad intent, but this happens quite often around term limit.

    The state's rights argument demonstrates the major problem with getting the world to act.

    Leaders advocate change, and entities at every level below claim that they shouldn't have to change because it hurts.

    Of course they wont like it and of course they will do anything to avoid it. that's why Governments are needed to force this stuff. " it infringes on states’ rights by forcing them to make radical changes to their infrastructure" yes but if they don't they infringe on *everyone's right to live on a nice planet* again, no one wants to do it, but it *has to be done*

    Also, unfortunately, electricity is not actually a country's number one burner of fossil fuels.. In fact, it usually only accounts for 1/10th of fossil fuels burned...

    have a look at the depressing stats in here to see the size of the task ahead of us.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

    Company's who are selling food that is found to be poisonous are forced to stop selling the food or remove the poisonous ingredient. I'm sure this is a radical change for them too. The same should apply to those poisoning the planet, because that's even worse, even people not buying the product get effected.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now