Justices seem divided over EPA mercury limits

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appears divided in a dispute over the Obama administration's first-ever regulations aimed at reducing power plant emissions.

The focus of the case is on mercury and other hazardous air pollutants that contribute to respiratory illnesses, birth defects and developmental problems in children.

The justices heard argument Wednesday in a challenge brought by industry groups and Republican-led states to the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to take action against coal- and oil-fired power plants that are responsible for half the nation's output of mercury.

Several conservative justices questioned whether EPA should have taken costs into account when it first decided to regulate hazardous air pollutants from power plants, or whether health risks are the only consideration. The EPA did factor in costs at a later stage when it wrote standards to reduce the toxic emissions.

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150325/apfn-us--supreme_court-epa-emissions-022d4d048a.html

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

1. Why are the justices ruling on something

that should be based on sound science.

[Jon82]

2. Let's prevent everything that promotes progress

I think this is a reach. But, if they are going to say the EPA over reached and have not considered monetary costs (something I'm sure will be negotiated to help the transition) maybe they should look at nations that are not moving forward on emission standards and see why this is important.

[inanna]

3. K & R

[winstars]

4. Yes, it costs more not to pollute the air. Next question please.

WTF, yes it cost more, so frigging what. I grew up in the 60's in NYC and the weather forecast on the TV always had the next days air pollution forecast.

Then they passed the Clean Air Act.

Now when I tell people (kids) this fact they don't understand me:

BEFORE CLEAN AIR REGULATIONS, YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE THE AIR.

Now, not so much...