

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The Supreme Court's stay of President Obama's Clean Power Plan is not the final blow to the Obama administration's climate change policy, but it seems directly aimed at tarnishing the president's environmental legacy. The ruling virtually guarantees that, even if the plan survives court challenges, it will be up to the next president to implement it -- or ignore it.
The Supreme Court's stay of President Obama's Clean Power Plan is not the final blow to the Obama administration's climate change policy, but it seems directly aimed at tarnishing the president's environmental legacy. The ruling virtually guarantees that, even if the plan survives court challenges, it will be up to the next president to implement it -- or ignore it.
The conservative majority sided 5-4 with a coalition of mostly Republican-led states and industry groups that claims the administration is exceeding its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Normally, federal regulations can be rolled out while legal challenges are heard in the lower courts. With this ruling, by most accounts, the high court made an extraordinary decision to stop a regulation before a lower court could even issue its own decision.
The administration and some environmental groups put up a brave face in reaction to the stay. "There are driving forces that will allow the United States to meet its commitment outside of the Clean Power Plan rule," said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. David Doniger, climate and clean-air program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the stay cannot "dampen the overwhelming public support for action on climate change and clean energy. Smart industry, financial, and governmental leaders will not count the Clean Power Plan out." Mindy Lubber, president of Boston-based Ceres, which advocates for sustainable business practices and investor decisions, said that hundreds of companies and investors "believe the clean energy economy is inevitable and irreversible, both nationally and globally."
But the unprecedented nature of the stay suggests that the fossil-fuel industry has the ear of enough justices to deny the inevitable. Rattled by the seismic shifts in the plunging price of oil, the decline of domestic coal prices to their lowest levels in 30 years, and society's increasing embrace of renewable sources of energy, the protesting states and industries say the Clean Power Plan will clean them out.
But in the absence of national energy policy, the Clean Power Plan is as good an instrument as any to speed that evolution. Electric power plants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions, and Obama's rules would cut carbon pollution by 32 percent by 2030. States and the utilities serving them have plenty of time to plan and retool; the first reduction in emissions is not required until 2022.
In the past, this Supreme Court has generally upheld the right of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the emissions that contribute to climate change. Even in a 2014 ruling that placed some limits on the EPA's authority, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted."
But this stay suggests Scalia and four other justices are deciding that Obama and the EPA have entirely enough. That cannot possibly be the case, with evidence of climate change all around and temperature data that showthat the Earth experienced its warmest years on record the last two years.
For the high court, the Clean Power Plan may seem a mere matter of domestic government overreach. But the world is looking to the plan as a key symbol of American credibility in the Paris climate agreement. Whatever the justices ultimately decide, their ruling will have global reach.
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 |
The Supreme Court's stay of President Obama's Clean Power Plan is not the final blow to the Obama administration's climate change policy, but it seems directly aimed at tarnishing the president's environmental legacy. The ruling virtually guarantees that, even if the plan survives court challenges, it will be up to the next president to implement it -- or ignore it.
The conservative majority sided 5-4 with a coalition of mostly Republican-led states and industry groups that claims the administration is exceeding its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Normally, federal regulations can be rolled out while legal challenges are heard in the lower courts. With this ruling, by most accounts, the high court made an extraordinary decision to stop a regulation before a lower court could even issue its own decision.
The administration and some environmental groups put up a brave face in reaction to the stay. "There are driving forces that will allow the United States to meet its commitment outside of the Clean Power Plan rule," said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. David Doniger, climate and clean-air program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the stay cannot "dampen the overwhelming public support for action on climate change and clean energy. Smart industry, financial, and governmental leaders will not count the Clean Power Plan out." Mindy Lubber, president of Boston-based Ceres, which advocates for sustainable business practices and investor decisions, said that hundreds of companies and investors "believe the clean energy economy is inevitable and irreversible, both nationally and globally."
But the unprecedented nature of the stay suggests that the fossil-fuel industry has the ear of enough justices to deny the inevitable. Rattled by the seismic shifts in the plunging price of oil, the decline of domestic coal prices to their lowest levels in 30 years, and society's increasing embrace of renewable sources of energy, the protesting states and industries say the Clean Power Plan will clean them out.
But in the absence of national energy policy, the Clean Power Plan is as good an instrument as any to speed that evolution. Electric power plants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions, and Obama's rules would cut carbon pollution by 32 percent by 2030. States and the utilities serving them have plenty of time to plan and retool; the first reduction in emissions is not required until 2022.
In the past, this Supreme Court has generally upheld the right of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the emissions that contribute to climate change. Even in a 2014 ruling that placed some limits on the EPA's authority, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted."
But this stay suggests Scalia and four other justices are deciding that Obama and the EPA have entirely enough. That cannot possibly be the case, with evidence of climate change all around and temperature data that showthat the Earth experienced its warmest years on record the last two years.
For the high court, the Clean Power Plan may seem a mere matter of domestic government overreach. But the world is looking to the plan as a key symbol of American credibility in the Paris climate agreement. Whatever the justices ultimately decide, their ruling will have global reach.
The Supreme Court's stay of President Obama's Clean Power Plan is not the final blow to the Obama administration's climate change policy, but it seems directly aimed at tarnishing the president's environmental legacy. The ruling virtually guarantees that, even if the plan survives court challenges, it will be up to the next president to implement it -- or ignore it.
The conservative majority sided 5-4 with a coalition of mostly Republican-led states and industry groups that claims the administration is exceeding its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Normally, federal regulations can be rolled out while legal challenges are heard in the lower courts. With this ruling, by most accounts, the high court made an extraordinary decision to stop a regulation before a lower court could even issue its own decision.
The administration and some environmental groups put up a brave face in reaction to the stay. "There are driving forces that will allow the United States to meet its commitment outside of the Clean Power Plan rule," said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. David Doniger, climate and clean-air program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the stay cannot "dampen the overwhelming public support for action on climate change and clean energy. Smart industry, financial, and governmental leaders will not count the Clean Power Plan out." Mindy Lubber, president of Boston-based Ceres, which advocates for sustainable business practices and investor decisions, said that hundreds of companies and investors "believe the clean energy economy is inevitable and irreversible, both nationally and globally."
But the unprecedented nature of the stay suggests that the fossil-fuel industry has the ear of enough justices to deny the inevitable. Rattled by the seismic shifts in the plunging price of oil, the decline of domestic coal prices to their lowest levels in 30 years, and society's increasing embrace of renewable sources of energy, the protesting states and industries say the Clean Power Plan will clean them out.
But in the absence of national energy policy, the Clean Power Plan is as good an instrument as any to speed that evolution. Electric power plants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions, and Obama's rules would cut carbon pollution by 32 percent by 2030. States and the utilities serving them have plenty of time to plan and retool; the first reduction in emissions is not required until 2022.
In the past, this Supreme Court has generally upheld the right of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the emissions that contribute to climate change. Even in a 2014 ruling that placed some limits on the EPA's authority, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted."
But this stay suggests Scalia and four other justices are deciding that Obama and the EPA have entirely enough. That cannot possibly be the case, with evidence of climate change all around and temperature data that showthat the Earth experienced its warmest years on record the last two years.
For the high court, the Clean Power Plan may seem a mere matter of domestic government overreach. But the world is looking to the plan as a key symbol of American credibility in the Paris climate agreement. Whatever the justices ultimately decide, their ruling will have global reach.