Climate Change
The Overlooked Precedent Supporting EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
Even Roberts and Scalia agreed that Mass. v. EPA is the law
An important precedent has been overlooked in the coverage of the Trump EPA’s repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The 2009 finding relied was based on , in which the Court had held that the Clean Air Act covers air pollution and directed EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases are harmful. One reason to worry about the litigation is that the conservatives Justices all dissented from Massachusetts v. EPA over the repeal. But there’s another equally important precedent: American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP). That ruling was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, so it may carry more weight.
CONTINUE READINGCan the Endangerment Finding be Repealed? Not While MASS. v. EPA Still Lives.
On any fair reading of Justice Stevens’s opinion, the Endangerment Finding is valid.
EPA claims that its justifications for repealing the Endangerment Finding are consistent with the ruling in Mass. v. EPA. That’s just not true.
CONTINUE READINGThe Affirmative Case for Finding Endangerment
Despite hairsplitting by the current EPA, finding endangerment is a no-brainer.
or EPA to decide that vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions aren’t harmful is iike NASA deciding that the earth isn’t round after all. Over the next year or two, lawyers will be picking over EPA’s detailed legal arguments. Let’s not get mired in the weeds. It’s crazy that this issue is even being raised.
In 2007, the Supreme Court told EPA to do two things: (1) consider whether GHGs endanger human health and welfare, and (2) if the answer is yes, regulate vehicle emissions of GHGs. That’s exactly what EPA did. Nothing has changed in the meantime.
Environmental Journalism in the Age of Idiocracy
Jeff Bezos’ murder of the Washington Post is a major hit, but there are hundreds of great environmental reporters out there in new media who deserve our support — and subscriptions.
By now we have all heard and read about Jeff Bezos’ decision to destroy The Washington Post. Make no mistake: that is what he decided: hundreds of reporters have gotten fired, including several foreign correspondents in dangerous areas with no means of support and no ability to get home. And spare me any questions concerning …
Continue reading “Environmental Journalism in the Age of Idiocracy”
CONTINUE READINGHot Take on the Endangerment Repeal
It’s a tweaked version of arguments that the Supreme Court rejected in 2007.
EPA’s argument for repealing the Endangerment Finding is basically a rehash of legal arguments that were rejected by the Supreme Court in 2007. These arguments haven’t improved with age. Notably, EPA doesn’t dare contest the science.
CONTINUE READINGA Science-Policy Dialogue on SRM for Latin America
Key takeaways from the UCLA Emmett Institute’s convening on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) in Santiago, Chile.
Though interventions like solar radiation modification (SRM) are increasingly breaking into mainstream conversations of climate change, the charged nature of this topic and political extremes that have characterized discussion around it make it difficult for policymakers and decision-makers to find neutral spaces to learn about existing research, ask questions, and brainstorm policy ideas with colleagues and trusted experts. Creating that neutral space was the goal of an Emmett …
Continue reading “A Science-Policy Dialogue on SRM for Latin America”
CONTINUE READINGState Blacklists of Companies with Sustainability Policies Take a Constitutional Hit
A federal district court just struck down a Texas law blacklisting companies that oppose fossil fuels.
Four or five years ago, a half-dozen states passed laws that blacklist companies opposing fossil fuels. Texas was the most prominent of those states. These laws have pressured companies, especially big financial companies, to invest in fossil fuels. A federal district judge has struck down the Texas law as a violation of due process and the First Amendment. The court’s ruling is a welcome development and long overdue. Texas has been on a campaign to punish anyone who dares oppose the use of fossil fuels. It’s good to see that campaign hit a constitutional wall.
Trump Tried to Kill Renewables. He Failed.
Despite assaults by Trump and his Congress, renewables are still growing.
Trump has done everything within his power to bless the US with more air pollution and carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Congress did its part, rolling back billions in spending and set accelerated phaseouts for tax credits. Yet renewable energy hasn’t died. It hasn’t even slowed down all that much.
Here are the numbers. Solar alone accounted for almost three-fourths of new generation capacity in Trump’s first ten months, and wind added another 13%, for 87% total. And this year should also be strong.
CONTINUE READINGKeeping Coal on Life Support
Trump is doing everything he can to boost coal. And still, the industry is on life support.
The good news for investors is that coal is behaving like much of the non-AI stock market this year. Yet this growth is taking place on a very low baseline, which had slumped well below from Great Recession levels. If investors are to be believed, Trump may be able to keep the coal industry on life support. But it’s still in the ICU.
CONTINUE READINGMaintaining California’s Environmental Leadership
California’s 2026 Gubernatorial Race
California will elect a new governor in 2026. The primary is June 2 and the top two candidates will face off on November 3. If you are in California, make sure you are registered to vote! This election comes as a pivotal time for California’s environmental leadership. California’s next governor must be ready to step …
Continue reading “Maintaining California’s Environmental Leadership”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
