Administration backs utilities in climate case

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Washington Post

The Obama administration sided with major utility companies in a Supreme Court case about climate change on Thursday, angering environmentalists who say that the administration's broad argument could hurt their ability to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or even to bring other lawsuits.

Administration officials said the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory moves to restrain carbon dioxide emissions made the lawsuit unnecessary, and the acting solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to return the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

But environmentalists said that the administration had talked about - but not imposed - limits on emissions from existing power plants.

Moreover, environmental groups said, the government's brief went beyond that, employing arguments that threatened to undercut a basis for legal action that have been used for a century, since Georgia sued over damage a Tennessee copper smelter was inflicting on Georgia's forests.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606724.html

[beforeyoureyes]

1. This kind of crap ceased to be surprising a long time ago...

Obama works for the corporations.

Not us.

[snooper2]

7. Do you know anything about this case or are you just spouting crap based on a headline?

hmmm?

Maybe go back and read the article....

here's a snippet for you- it shouldn't be too confusing

"The administration has weighed in on behalf of the TVA, a federal agency. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued that the EPA was using its authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, an authority it won in a case decided in April 2007. He said that the agency's actions since the 2nd Circuit ruling last year had changed the situation. He cited fuel-efficiency standards, an EPA finding that carbon dioxide posed a danger and initial steps toward regulating emissions at new or rebuilt power plants.

"EPA has already begun taking actions to address carbon-dioxide emissions," his brief said.

"That regulatory approach is preferable to what would result if multiple district courts - acting without the benefit of even the most basic statutory guidance - could use common-law nuisance claims to sit as arbiters of scientific and technology-related disputes and de facto regulators of power plants and other sources of pollution."

[elleng]

21. Thanks so much, snoop!

Nothing like a few facts!

(I do recognize that 'legal' facts are problematic for some, but TOO MANY here at DU, imo.)

[Iowa]

22. +1

[Lucky 13]

2. Not surprised. Just ANGRY.

I'm sick of this shit. The raping of our environment continues... by a Democratic administration we all voted for. I was had.

[snooper2]

8. really, could you explain it for me?

How does the litigation in this one case show that Obama is raping the enviroment?

Hmm, do you know anything about it, or just another reactionary post based on a reactionary headline?

Will be waiting for your detailed explaination of the plantiffs brief and why States and entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority should be trying to use the courts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.


Will be waiting... :eyes:

[Lucky 13]

26. REALLY. Sorry to keep you waiting.

I'm at work so this must be briefer than I'd like.

Yes I do know something about it. I work for an environmental non-profit and, while I don't work on air & climate change issues specifically, am close to the issue, particularly with regards to sea level rise, nitrification, acidification, etc.

Back when this case was filed in 2004, the eight state governments, NYC, and various NGOs sued TVA for burning fossil fuels which they argued was contributing significantly to climate change. The lawsuit sought to FORCE TVA to reduce consumption/burning of fuels gradually over a decade or more.

Bear in mind, at this time, before this time, and SINCE this time, including during the current administration, EPA's regulations were fairly lax and in many cases weren't being enforced well. EPA is slow and cumbersome. They are overworked and the vast majority of regulations, whether they be air, water, or what-have-you are woefully neglected. It's similar, though perhaps not as glaringly bad as, the Minerals Management Service. YES, there are rules in place for mine safety. NO, many mines do not conform to these safety laws - Most violations aren't even discovered or documented, some receive notices of violations, seldom - IF EVER - do companies have to actually make the changes suggested or pay a fine.

What the administration has done is to say to these states, NYC, and citizens - you have no right to sue the offenders for the damage they do to your environment, health, etc. because technically it's all regulated by the EPA. EPA's got this one! No need to worry!

BUT EPA ISN'T ENFORCING THE RULES! So what recourse do the states and citizens have to FORCE POLLUTERS to STOP or CHANGE when the EPA falls down on the job?

And how can you be SURE this is a bad thing for the environment? The polluters are THRILLED by the administrations comments.


This is just one in a long series of bullshit decisions by this administration that have significantly harmed the environment or do NOTHING to protect it. Need evidence of that? Go swimming in the Gulf. Visit the marshes of Louisiana. Then read NOAA's erroneous, politically-slanted briefs saying that much of the oil is "gone". LIES and BULLSHIT.

Go fishing in the Kalamazoo river. Witness how the US has made few commitments to address climate change... or hasn't made significant progress to move towards alternative energies... or is cutting funds to protect lands... Do I need to go on?

[Lucky 13]

27. Crickets??

You've called out everyone on this post and now I get crickets?

Will be waiting... :eyes:

[No Elephants]

29. Shhh. We know so much better than the environmental agencies (and their lawyers) that

brought this suit, not to mention the silly Framers, who actually thought the federal judiciary had a co-equal role in federal government. If only the fools had been able fully to ken and appreciate the beauty, the consistency and the efficiency of an Executive Branch unhindered by the other two.

I always thought resolving inonsistencies in lower courts in matters of federal law was the role of SCOTUS review and/or Congressional action. Silly me. Turns out the better view is the Executive Branch telling federal courts to butt out.

Gee, I hope no one has any regrets whenver we once again have a Republican President and a Democratic Court. Presidents last 4 to 8 years, unless something unusual happens. Precedents tend to last much longer than Presidents.

[ixion]

3. Obama sides with yet another BIG Vertical

surprise, surprise.

At least he's being consistent. :eyes:

[snooper2]

9. DU poster reacts to headline

at least it's consistent :rofl:

[ixion]

10. Yeah, because selling out We the People is just so gosh darn funny

laugh it up.

[snooper2]

12. Maybe you can explain it for me then...since the posters above are unable to

How does this litigation and the Adminstration's stance "sell out the people"

Hmm? Will be waiting...

[ixion]

13. If I have to explain it to you, when it's patently obvious

then it's a waste of my time to do so.

[snooper2]

14. Ah, so you can't explain/don't understand the case...gotcha

There's a thread going on in GD on this topic as well with a bunch of facts n- stuff in it as well.

Maybe do a little research next time before getting caught with your pants down.

[ixion]

15. No, sir, you are the one who asked for an explanation

I just don't think it's worth my time, because you're obviously predisposed to the spin.

[snooper2]

16. You are the one making generalized statements..

"Obama sides with another big vertical"

Administration is selling out "we the people"

And are unable to back up "why" this is the case. Because you posted your initial post based on a headline without understanding the background. I gotcha...it's okay..not like anybody is reading this thread or anything :P

[ixion]

17. It's easy to back up with quotes from this article

but why waste time arguing with folks whose only motive is to discredit the post in spite of ample evidence to the contrary?

Good day, to you, sir.

[snooper2]

20. Gotcha, nothing again...so you are okay with Sarah Palin type governors

setting limits on pollutors...and a mis-mash of regluations vs. a federal policy and standards.

Gotcha...

I guess pollution in my state of Texas sees that sign saying "Welcome to Oklahoma" it stops in it's tracks and says- Oh SHIT! I better get back in my state! :rofl:

[ixion]

24. This is about a case of companies polluting, and has nothing to do with what your babbling about

but you already knew that, and I'm sure it matters not to you.

The case dates to 2004, when eight state governments, the city of New York and three land trusts sued the Tennessee Valley Authority and five other utilities burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. The plaintiffs said the utilities' greenhouse emissions posed a "public nuisance" because they contributed to climate change. They asked the court to order the utilities to reduce emissions "by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade." Although they lost in district court, a two-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit ruled in their favor on Sept. 21, 2009.

[snooper2]

25. it's about jurisdiction over who can set/limit greenhouse emissions

so you are for a mish-mash of regluations that would be all over the map vs. letting the federal government put limits and standards across the board. Gotcha...

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

[ixion]

28. Are you capable of debate? Or is snark the only thing you know?

Sort of a one-trick pony in that regard, aren't cha. ;)

[msongs]

4. Duncan/Obama - reforming schools for the 21st century? lol selling them to corporations more like it

[EJSTES2005]

5. He has about a zero chance of re-election

This is so sad. He was suppose to different.....guess it was all just wishful thinking....:(

[Frisbee]

6. What climate change?

I predict it will get steadily cooler between now and the end of the year.

:sarcasm:

[on point]

11. Looking more and more like a one term president every day

[w4rma]

18. Yup. We got conned. (nt)

[No Elephants]

19. Judicial action inappropriate? Since when?

[Luciferous]

23. The hits just keep on coming. nt