SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a 6-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate air pollution from coal-burning power plants across state lines handing the Obama administration what is arguably its biggest environmental victory in its effort to use the Clean Air Act as a tool to fight global warming and reduce carbon emissions. "Today's Supreme Court decision means that millions of Americans can breathe easier," says Fred Krupp, president for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which was a party to the case.
At issue was whether the EPA could use what are known as good-neighbor rules to regulate emissions that cross state borders. In short, the Supreme Court ruled that a power plant in Ohio whose emissions blow east into New York is liable for the damage caused there, even if it's hundreds of miles away from the source. Utilities must now weigh the high costs of cleaning up their coal operations against simply shutting them down. Given the cheap price of natural gas, the decision is likely to push utilities into building new natural gas-fired power plants. By 2020, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates, 60 gigawatts of coal-fired power production will be retiredabout 20 percent of the total amount of coal-fired capacity in the U.S. If anything, the Supreme Court will quicken that pace of retirements.
Coal is nonetheless expected to make up 32 percent of US electricity production in 2040 and coal's outlook is even better abroad, where China, India, and other rapidly expanding economies are eager customers for the inexpensive fuel. World coal consumption is expected to rise at an average rate of 1.3 percent per year through 2040, according to EIA. Republicans in Congress denounced the decision. "The administration's overreaching regulation will drive up energy costs and threaten jobs and electric reliability," say Representatives Fred Upton and Edward Whitfield. "We cannot allow E.P.A.'s aggressive regulatory expansion to go unchecked. We will continue our oversight of the agency and our efforts to protect American families and workers from E.P.A.'s onslaught of costly rules."
[Editor's Note: This Submitter occasionally submits the same story to other sites]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Thursday May 01 2014, @07:02PM
This is a difficult problem, but let me say this as an intentionally child-free individual:
Step 1: would be to stop glorifying parenthood as the pinnacle of human achievement (it isn't, it's just some biology and chemistry and any idiot can do it), and to stop hassling those who choose to be child-free. The baby pressure is high in the late 20s and early 30s, but by the mid-40s, everyone gives up. Instead of pushing all the bullshit pressure to have kids, people should respect the decisions of those who choose against it. I have never in my life regretted my decision and my life is better for it. Plus, I could burn barrels of heavy crude in my back yard everyday for the rest of my life and come out carbon negative.
Step 2: incentivize child-free status -- it doesn't have to be a lot, but maybe a $500 tax credit each year that a person doesn't breed.
Step 3: Make it not OK to discriminate in the many subtle ways child-free people are discriminated agains. For example, breeders get lots of leeway for being late and missing work because their sprog has the sniffles. You know who picks up that slack? The child-free people -- obviously our time is not worth much because we don't have kids. Right -- my time is incredibly valuable to me and it is as important as a breeder's time.
Step 4: A reality show featuring the child-free life would be good. People don't have a frame of reference for being child-free and it should be presented in a positive light. Not the usual disparaging "you're so selfish" BS -- truth is, it is the breeders who are selfishly destroying the planet. I'm making it better for your kids, so rather than judge me, you should thank me.
(Score: 2) by velex on Thursday May 01 2014, @10:42PM
I like those ideas. Personally, I'd make everyone's taxes about the equivalent of someone with 1 child and put additional taxes on having more than 2 children. I'd also eliminate having children as a way to get onto entitlement programs (food stamps, subsidized housing, and especially cash hand-outs). (Of course, to be fair, we'd need to somehow make sure that just about every last teenage girl is on the pill until she's 25 and knows wtf she's doing.)
It amazes me how hung up people get about having grandkids. Hmm... wait... I think one problem just solved the other. He's what we need. Got a case of somebody with a womb who can't understand why come [sic] she keeps getting pregnant? Got an couple who are infuriated with their son or daughter for murdering their unconceived grandkids? Adopt-a-grandparent!