Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that largely affirms that the EPA has the power to regulate sources responsible for 83 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says now it's up to states to do the rest of the dirty work.
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
The border of Southeast Ohio and West Virginia has long been considered coal country. In the wake of President Obama's announcement that he plans to cut carbon emissions by 30 percent, Bob Vincenzo, the mayor of St. Clairsville, Ohio, is worried about the future of his town—and the region.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Last June, President Obama instructed the EPA to issue new regulations on power plant emissions. But Oklahoma is saying not so fast. Attorney General Scott Pruitt is questioning the EPA's legal authority to impose limits state by state.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
By Robert Krulwich : Host, Radiolab
I didn't know what to make of this when I saw it. I live in Manhattan, in a city where people bike, take buses, subways, trains, live and work in towers where they share elevators, share water, share electricity. I thought my town is setting the example for energy-efficient, communal living. And then, the guy who runs the place, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, releases a study — including (see below) a shocking video — that says, you think New York is great on energy? You think that? Well, check this out...
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
By Julie Caine
(KALW - San Francisco) The future of California’s landmark greenhouse gas emissions law is being called into question.
Implementation of the law was delayed earlier this year by a U.S. District Court judge in Fresno, who ruled that the regulations violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from both sides of the debate last week.
At issue is the “Low Carbon Standard”—regulations that require fuel producers to meet California’s emissions standards, or pay a penalty in the state’s cap and trade system. Fuel, farm and trucking industry lawyers argue that the law violates the federal commerce clause because the law reaches across state borders, effectively favoring California-based producers over out-of-state competitors, whose fuel may not meet the state’s strict emission requirements.
The California Air Resources Board, the agency responsible for implementing the regulations, says the law is intended to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990s levels by the year 2020. Lawyers representing the state and environmental groups argue that the California law is the only way to reach these goals.
Sean Donahue, an Environmental Defense Fund attorney who presented oral arguments to the appeals court, said that at its core, the law is about regulating greenhouse gas emissions by focusing on the entire life cycle of the fuel. “It’s not based on where the fuel is from, but is based on the effect on the climate,” Donahue said.
Peter Keisler, a fuel industry attorney, told the court, “Even if there is no discrimination, you still have a regulatory scheme whose purpose is to penalize imports, to penalize out-of-state conduct in an effort to control in-state emissions.”
The three-judge panel asked tough questions during the appeal, including a focus on language in the law that seemed to point to favoring California employment and tax revenues.
"Isn’t this unambiguous evidence that the board was motivated by protectionism?” asked 9th Circuit Court Judge Mary Murguia.
The panel now moves on to consider the oral and written arguments in the case before issuing a written opinion, a process that could take many months.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
By Kate Hinds
A federal appeals court Tuesday said the Environmental Protection Agency was "unambiguously correct" in using existing federal law to limit greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Several industry groups -- as well as the state of Texas -- had argued that the science behind climate change was uncertain, and that the EPA lacked the legal authority to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from factories, power plants, and automobile tailpipes.
But the court unanimously rejected that view. "This is how science works," the judges wrote in the 82-page decision (pdf). "EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."
The opinion cites not only a previous Supreme Court ruling but also Schoolhouse Rock. (“As a generation of schoolchildren knows, 'by that time, it’s very unlikely that [a bill will] become a law. It’s not easy to become a law.'")
Read the decision here.
Putin faces a a growing Russian protest movement, Xi Jinping visits Washington, and emissions trading causes friction at the EU-China summit
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Monday, June 20, 2011
By Ilya Marritz
The Supreme Court has handed a firm rebuke to eight state attorneys general — including New York's — in a case that touched on climate change and business.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
By Casey Miner
(San Francisco–Casey Miner, KALW News) It's a controversial plan, but the city of San Francisco is pushing ahead anyway: this morning, the board of supervisors voted to continue studying several options for congestion pricing cordons in the northeast corner of the city. The options include a $3 toll to enter and leave the cordoned area during especially busy times; alternatively, commuters who parked downtown all day would pay a $6 toll upon leaving. A third option, which would have charged drivers to enter the city from the south, was scrapped after politicians from Peninsula city councilmen to a state Assemblyman threatened a counter-toll. Don't hold your breath, though – the earliest anyone will pay to drive into the Financial District is 2015.