Home | About | Donate

Putting a Price on Pollution, SCOTUS Backs Coal Profits Over Public Health


#1

Putting a Price on Pollution, SCOTUS Backs Coal Profits Over Public Health

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Placing the interests of Big Coal over public health, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to back the Environmental Protection Agency's new power plant emissions standards.

In a 5-4 ruling (pdf), the court argued that the Obama administration "unreasonably" interpreted its authority under the Clean Air Act by failing to account for the cost of compliance for polluting coal-fired power plants to meet the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which were finalized in 2012.


#3

My sediments exactly! The 0.001% would steal the pennies off a dead man's eyes without a thought.
* The Corporations are Supreme Court will back anything that is profitable to their masters and squelch anything that pertains to We the People, if it will cost their masters a nickel.
* The 0.001% have spent a lot of money, but it is apparently a worthwhile investment it as they own the best politicians and jurists that money can buy.
;-})


#4

How do you quantify the cost to public health and the effects of global warming? How do you convince the conservatives on the Supreme Court that these are real?

Conservatives don't look at the science. They interpret the law in attempts to justify their preconceptions. This is how conservative fundamentalists interpret their holy books to burn witches at the stake or behead infidels. Or how neocons and neolibs manipulate the news to invade countries and profit from their wars.


#6

Capitalists like gay people - it means lots of affluent 2-income households whit lots of money to but their stuff.


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#8

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#9

fake_french: You said it perfectly.


#10

You don't mean that wonderful "clean" coal do you? That stuff that also fuels those beautiful nuclear power plants that are collapsing before our eyes?

Black lung? Just take a long handled brush and a little Lysol and clean them out...problem solved!


#12

OK - so the SC didn't overturn the regs - just required that the EPA do a more "thorough cost/benefit" analysis which included costs to the industry - that should be quite doable and result in keeping the regs ...

Though i do not deny the clear pro-corp leaning of the Court, the problem may well lie in the legislation that required such an analysis - it was designed to produce such a result - if the EPA gets its act together, this should be no more than a "bump in the road" - but it also means that we need to put folks in office that will change that legislation .....


#13

The opinion charges that the EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act "unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants."
If the Supreme Court can actually strike down any legislation or rule it considers 'unreasonable', it has veto power over all legislation. Perhaps the EPA's opinion of what's reasonable differs with those few in black robes.
Maybe the Court could apply this reasonable test to legislation by Congress: That way, if corporations did not like a tax increase, they could get their 'Supreme' lackeys to .find it 'unreasonable'.


#14

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.