SCOTUS' anti-EPA decision doesn't mean much f/ coal

[Panich52]

Last edited Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:04 PM - Edit history (1)

SMALL WIN FOR COAL
Supreme Court blocks EPA mercury rule. The Atlantic:

” The 5-4 decision found that the EPA had violated the Clean Air Act by not considering the cost of compliance before deciding to limit mercury pollution. The government had argued that it considered the cost throughout its process of writing the mercury rules, but not at the outset … the narrow nature of Scalia’s ruling doesn’t offer much of a signal either way about how the Court might rule on EPA [climate] regulations going forward.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/a-rare-loss-for-environmentalists-at-the-supreme-court/397196/


Won’t do much for coal, argues Politico’s Michael Grunwald:

“…the agency shouldn’t have too much trouble demonstrating that the costs of the rule (which it has already calculated are much less than the benefits) are not too high to go forward … But even if the mercury rule dies … most of America’s dirtiest coal plants have either been scheduled for retirement or retrofitted with modern control technologies

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/supreme-court-epa-ruling-000123

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Fix your headline

I was puzzled as to why the SCOTUS had ruled on the ERA.

[Nitram]

2. The weird thing is that a cost/benefit analysis had already been run.

Last edited Wed Jul 1, 2015, 09:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Showing the ratio of the cost of harm to health versus industry expense was 8:1. Another bogus decision.

[Fred Sanders]

3. Do not let the Tea Bagger hordes know this was not really a loss for the environment...let them think they got one.