Supreme Court puts EPA’s carbon reduction program on hold

The Post explains:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a key part of President Obama’s ambitious proposal to limit carbon emissions and reduce global warming while the plan is challenged. . . . The court’s decision does not address the merits of the challenge but indicates justices think the states have raised serious questions.

The administration’s initiative, which is still in the planning stages, required states to submit plans for shifting away from fossil-fuel power plants in favor of alternative forms of energy. It is aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide at existing plants by about a third by 2030.

More than two dozen states, along with coal and utility companies, are challenging the program. Given the pace of the legal proceedings, the stay could remain in place until after the next president is sworn in.

Here's the story.

0 thoughts on “Supreme Court puts EPA’s carbon reduction program on hold

  1. Paul Gregg says:

    The real tragedy in this is not only the continued release of carbon emissions, but even the economic cost of continuing the use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, for electricity generation does not at all justify the use of fossil fuels.
    How is this possible? It is possible because of two simple and unarguable facts.
    1. Wind and solar “fuels” have no associated cost. They are free. Coal has mining cost, and processing cost, with similar costs for extraction of natural gas, and its processing.
    2. Wind and solar “fuels” have no associated delivery or shipping cost. Each of these free “fuels” are delivered free of cost to the point of electric power generation. This is never true for fossil fuels, be it transportation cost for coal, and pipeling operational cost for natural gas.
    Thus, the claims that “green energy” is more costly than our present usage, is an utter lie. Yes, there is an initial installation cost for solar and wind energy, just as there is for new fossil fuel plants. But this cost, in the long run, does not matter at all. Eventually, the ongoing accumulating fuel cost of fossil fuels overwhelms the contribution of initial cost. Fossil fuel plants have ongoing costs for fuel and significant maintenance, while wind and solar costs per unit of energy produced continue to decrease to a very low level, far below the fossil fuel competition.
    The claim that maintenance costs for wind and solar is higher than that for fossil fuel plants is humbug. I am a retired electrical engineer, and I know that coal-fired plants require frequent refractory relining of their high temperature, high pressure steam boilers. Steam turbines demand frequent careful maintenance, and often require eroded blade replacement and rebalance. Wind machines require at most a yearly inspection visit and possibly a greasing of the hub bearing. Solar panels may be inspected, but require no routine maintenance other than washing.

  2. Beverly Alexander says:

    Maybe the Supreme Court members who voted to put the carbon reduction program on hold, need to spend a day trying to breathe CO2. Or maybe they already have sustained brain damage from doing this.
    When I think of what it takes to get appointed to the Supreme Court, and what wonderful, thoughtful opinions I have read from past Justices, I am nonplussed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *