Supreme Court CO2 case

Gack! I'm so far behind on blogging I don't know where to begin.

Here's something: A while back I was casting about for good commentary on the upcoming Supreme Court CO2 case. This piece on Seed isn't great, but it does have some insight, like so:

A victory for the environmentalists would give the federal government the power to regulate CO2 emissions -- and the power to decide how strictly or loosely to do so. On the other hand, an EPA victory hands this power back to the states, including the petitioners -- who would then have the authority to set their own standards. Paradoxically, a ruling against the petitioners might ultimately result in the major emissions restrictions they seek.

Gack! I’m so far behind on blogging I don’t know where to begin.

Here’s something: A while back I was casting about for good commentary on the upcoming Supreme Court CO2 case. This piece on Seed isn’t great, but it does have some insight, like so:

A victory for the environmentalists would give the federal government the power to regulate CO2 emissions — and the power to decide how strictly or loosely to do so. On the other hand, an EPA victory hands this power back to the states, including the petitioners — who would then have the authority to set their own standards. Paradoxically, a ruling against the petitioners might ultimately result in the major emissions restrictions they seek.

All donations matched for a limited time!

Grist is the only award-winning newsroom focused on exploring equitable solutions to climate change. It’s vital reporting made entirely possible by loyal readers like you. At Grist, we don’t believe in paywalls. Instead, we rely on our readers to pitch in what they can so that we can continue bringing you our solution-based climate news. Donate now, and your gift has twice the impact. All donations matched for a limited time.

10%

Donate Now Not Now