Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the challenging-those-in-power dept.

Requirements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for states to reduce power plant emissions have been put on hold by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Obama administration's effort to combat climate change by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants. The brief order was not the last word on the case, which is most likely to return to the Supreme Court after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states and dozens of corporations and industry groups.

But the Supreme Court's willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that the program could face a skeptical reception from the justices. The vote was 5 to 4.

The challenged regulation, which was issued last summer by the Environmental Protection Agency, requires states to make major cuts to greenhouse gas pollution created by electric power plants, the nation's largest source of such emissions. The plan could transform the nation's electricity system, cutting emissions from existing power plants by a third by 2030, from a 2005 baseline, by closing hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired plants and increasing production of wind and solar power. [...] The regulation calls for states to submit plans to comply with the regulation by September, though they may seek a two-year extension. The first deadline for power plants to reduce their emissions is in 2022, with full compliance not required until 2030.

Also at NPR, Nature, Bloomberg, BBC.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:15PM

    by Francis (5544) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:15PM (#302224)

    That's ridiculous. So, we should just let climate change happen because most of the damage was done previously?

    This isn't a sunk cost sort of a thing, they continue to damage the environment and we don't even need them, we have better options now and have for decades.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:19PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:19PM (#302226) Journal

    So, we should just let climate change happen because most of the damage was done previously?

    Um, yes. That would be a good reason.

    This isn't a sunk cost sort of a thing, they continue to damage the environment and we don't even need them, we have better options now and have for decades.

    Sure, we do.