Supreme Court to Hear Case on Costs of Clean Air Act.

[elleng]

Source: nyt

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a major environmental case concerning the regulation of mercury and other toxic pollutants emitted by power plants.

The basic question in the case is whether, and when, the Environmental Protection Agency must take the costs of its regulations into account. The agency has interpreted the Clean Air Act, which requires regulations to be “appropriate and necessary,” not to demand consideration of costs early in the regulatory process.

The agency’s approach was challenged by more than 20 states, along with industry groups and energy companies.

A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in April that the agency’s interpretation of the act was reasonable and thus entitled to deference.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-costs-of-clean-air-act.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[villager]

1. And the externalized costs of disease, pollution, etc., won't be "taken into account" by the lackeys

...when they come to their "judgment."

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

2. has there been a more activist court in our history?

[srican69]

6. They aren't justices .. They are Injustices.

They are warriors fighting on behalf of the Corporate Oligarchists.

[vkkv]

3. Should we really be surprised?

This is a court of corporate thugs given to us in part, by the GOP and other Kochsuckers.


If money is free speech, then people with no money have none. Just the way conservatives want it.

[sakabatou]

4. Please tell me they're not gonna dismantle this too

[savalez]

8. They have a history of going the extra mile.

[procon]

5. This really is a no brainer.

Beyond being a deeply flawed premise, it reminds of that timeworn platitude of the old guy who complains to the doctor that his thumb hurts every time he hits it with a hammer, only to have the unsympathetic physician advise him to simply stop hitting his thumb. Likewise, the cost of complying with EPA regulations would be far less if there were less pollution.

[dballance]

7. Since this is the Roberts Court the corporations will win. /nt

[valerief]

9. Because breathing should only be available to those who can afford it.

[freshwest]

13. Yeah, that's what it is.

[Agony]

10. the question is: when will we take the strong BENEFITS of regulation into account.

that there are benefits is clear…

The Clean Air Act at 40:
A Clear Track Record of Success
http://www.nrdc.org/air/files/cleanairactsuccess.pdf

The Clean Air Act is a genuine American success story and one of the most
effective tools in U.S. history for protecting public health. It has sharply
reduced pollution from automobiles, industrial smokestacks, utility plants,
and major sources of toxic chemicals and particulate matter since its passage
in 1970. The law has saved tens of thousands of lives each year by reducing
harmful pollutants that cause or contribute to asthma, emphysema, heart
disease, and other potentially lethal respiratory ailments.
Despite continued gloom-and-doom forecasts by polluters and their
corporate lobbyists, the Clean Air Act has consistently provided huge health,
economic, and environmental benefits to our communities over the past four
decades that far outweigh any small costs associated with controlling lifethreatening
toxic pollution.
Millions of Lives Saved
The first 20 years of the Clean Air Act programs from 1970 to 1990 resulted in the prevention
of more than 205,000 premature deaths in the year 1990 alone.1 The 1990 amendments
have provided significant additional benefits—nearly 2 million lives have been cumulatively
saved from 1990 to 2010, according to NRDC’s analysis of data from the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent report, “Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to
2020.”2,3
Millions of Hospital Admissions and Emergency Room Visits Avoided
The 1970 to 1990 Clean Air Act programs prevented 209,000 hospital visits in 1990.4
According to NRDC’s analysis of the EPA’s data, the 1990 Amendments prevented an
additional 896,000 hospital admissions and 1,040,000 visits to the emergency room
between 1990 and 2010.5,6
Hundreds of Thousand's of Cases of Pollution-Related Illnesses Avoided
In 1990 alone, 18 million child respiratory illnesses, 843,000 asthma attacks, and 672,000
cases of chronic bronchitis, in addition to 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 22.6 million
lost work days were avoided as a result of the 1970 to 1990 Clean Air Act programs.7
Based on NRDC’s analysis of the EPA’s data, between 1990 and 2010, the 1990
amendments to the Act provided additional benefits, including the prevention of roughly:8
• 21.2 million asthma attacks;
• 1.7 million cases of acute bronchitis;
• 624,000 cases of chronic bronchitis;
• 38.5 million cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms;
• 1.5 million heart attacks; and
• 148 million lost work days.9

etc.

not that the neo-conservative activist judges on the court are capable of reason...

[elleng]

11. We used to do it, at least implicitly,

and after all, unregulated, capitalism cannot thrive.

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13

[Odin2005]

12. Fuck.