SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Caving to Coal Interests, Supreme Court Blocks Key Climate Action
"We’re disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can’t stay climate change and you can’t stay climate action," says EPA spokesperson
Feb 10, 2016
In a startling ruling Tuesday night, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions, pending resolution of a last-gasp lawsuit filed against the initiative by the coal industry.
Voting 5-4, the justices ordered the Obama administration not to implement the Clean Power Plan (CPP) until it has been reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with arguments set for June 2.
According to SCOTUSBlog, that means the plan may end up being stalled "until after the president leaves office next January," and spares coal-power plant operators from "having to do anything to begin planning for a shift to energy sources that the government considers to be cleaner."
Environmental groups said the ruling was a step in the wrong direction, but remained confident that the D.C. district court would uphold the CPP on legal merits and that clean energy, with widespread public support, would triumph over the fossil fuel industry.
"If there was ever a Supreme Court decision that looked backwards instead of towards the future, this was it," said Jamie Henn, communications director of the climate group 350.org. "Make no mistake, this case was brought forward on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and companies like ExxonMobil who will hold back change by any means necessary, but their days are numbered. The American people overwhelmingly support efforts to fight climate change and momentum is on our side."
A slew of utility companies and 29 largely Republican-led states filed a legal challenge (pdf) in October against the CPP and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which crafted the plan, stating that the department had intruded on states' sovereign rights over industry within their borders by ordering them to meet certain climate targets. The CPP requires states to cut greenhouse gas emissions from coal-powered plants by a third by 2030 from 2005 levels.
Tuesday's order had the support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. "The D.C. Circuit will review the plan before a three-judge panel but, once the panel has ruled, the case could be reheard by the full court of appeals before moving on to the Supreme Court," SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston wrote.
Erich Pica, executive director of Friends of the Earth, warned that the court's decision delays implementation of the CPP "while we are running out of time to combat climate change."
"It did not, however, address the merits of the case. The Environmental Protection Agency spent years crafting the Clean Power Plan, which has a strong legal foundation in the Clean Air Act. The rule has overwhelming support among the American people," Pica said, adding that the court's decision was a call "to all who care about our planet to demand more from our politicians as we fight climate change."
The White House issued an immediate disagreement with the ruling.
EPA spokesperson Melissa Harrison said, "We're disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can't stay climate change and you can't stay climate action. We believe strongly in this rule and we will continue working with our partners to address carbon pollution."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
350.orgbarack obamacoalenvironmentepafossil fuelsfriends of the earthrenewable energyus supreme court
In a startling ruling Tuesday night, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions, pending resolution of a last-gasp lawsuit filed against the initiative by the coal industry.
Voting 5-4, the justices ordered the Obama administration not to implement the Clean Power Plan (CPP) until it has been reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with arguments set for June 2.
According to SCOTUSBlog, that means the plan may end up being stalled "until after the president leaves office next January," and spares coal-power plant operators from "having to do anything to begin planning for a shift to energy sources that the government considers to be cleaner."
Environmental groups said the ruling was a step in the wrong direction, but remained confident that the D.C. district court would uphold the CPP on legal merits and that clean energy, with widespread public support, would triumph over the fossil fuel industry.
"If there was ever a Supreme Court decision that looked backwards instead of towards the future, this was it," said Jamie Henn, communications director of the climate group 350.org. "Make no mistake, this case was brought forward on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and companies like ExxonMobil who will hold back change by any means necessary, but their days are numbered. The American people overwhelmingly support efforts to fight climate change and momentum is on our side."
A slew of utility companies and 29 largely Republican-led states filed a legal challenge (pdf) in October against the CPP and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which crafted the plan, stating that the department had intruded on states' sovereign rights over industry within their borders by ordering them to meet certain climate targets. The CPP requires states to cut greenhouse gas emissions from coal-powered plants by a third by 2030 from 2005 levels.
Tuesday's order had the support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. "The D.C. Circuit will review the plan before a three-judge panel but, once the panel has ruled, the case could be reheard by the full court of appeals before moving on to the Supreme Court," SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston wrote.
Erich Pica, executive director of Friends of the Earth, warned that the court's decision delays implementation of the CPP "while we are running out of time to combat climate change."
"It did not, however, address the merits of the case. The Environmental Protection Agency spent years crafting the Clean Power Plan, which has a strong legal foundation in the Clean Air Act. The rule has overwhelming support among the American people," Pica said, adding that the court's decision was a call "to all who care about our planet to demand more from our politicians as we fight climate change."
The White House issued an immediate disagreement with the ruling.
EPA spokesperson Melissa Harrison said, "We're disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can't stay climate change and you can't stay climate action. We believe strongly in this rule and we will continue working with our partners to address carbon pollution."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
In a startling ruling Tuesday night, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions, pending resolution of a last-gasp lawsuit filed against the initiative by the coal industry.
Voting 5-4, the justices ordered the Obama administration not to implement the Clean Power Plan (CPP) until it has been reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with arguments set for June 2.
According to SCOTUSBlog, that means the plan may end up being stalled "until after the president leaves office next January," and spares coal-power plant operators from "having to do anything to begin planning for a shift to energy sources that the government considers to be cleaner."
Environmental groups said the ruling was a step in the wrong direction, but remained confident that the D.C. district court would uphold the CPP on legal merits and that clean energy, with widespread public support, would triumph over the fossil fuel industry.
"If there was ever a Supreme Court decision that looked backwards instead of towards the future, this was it," said Jamie Henn, communications director of the climate group 350.org. "Make no mistake, this case was brought forward on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and companies like ExxonMobil who will hold back change by any means necessary, but their days are numbered. The American people overwhelmingly support efforts to fight climate change and momentum is on our side."
A slew of utility companies and 29 largely Republican-led states filed a legal challenge (pdf) in October against the CPP and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which crafted the plan, stating that the department had intruded on states' sovereign rights over industry within their borders by ordering them to meet certain climate targets. The CPP requires states to cut greenhouse gas emissions from coal-powered plants by a third by 2030 from 2005 levels.
Tuesday's order had the support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. "The D.C. Circuit will review the plan before a three-judge panel but, once the panel has ruled, the case could be reheard by the full court of appeals before moving on to the Supreme Court," SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston wrote.
Erich Pica, executive director of Friends of the Earth, warned that the court's decision delays implementation of the CPP "while we are running out of time to combat climate change."
"It did not, however, address the merits of the case. The Environmental Protection Agency spent years crafting the Clean Power Plan, which has a strong legal foundation in the Clean Air Act. The rule has overwhelming support among the American people," Pica said, adding that the court's decision was a call "to all who care about our planet to demand more from our politicians as we fight climate change."
The White House issued an immediate disagreement with the ruling.
EPA spokesperson Melissa Harrison said, "We're disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can't stay climate change and you can't stay climate action. We believe strongly in this rule and we will continue working with our partners to address carbon pollution."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.