Low profile Supreme Court case could be big problems for planet
The Supreme Court's ruling that there is not a "parallel track" for climate policy paves the way for a Washington showdown.
Fri, Jun 24 2011 at 12:08 PM
ONE TRACK MIND: There are big implications for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion in the case. (Photo: Zuma Press)
The high court ruled that the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions rests with the Environmental Protection Agency and not the judicial system.
Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the current law that allows for the EPA to implement carbon dioxide policies does not allow for, “a parallel track to control greenhouse gas emissions by federal judges.”
What this all boils down to is that if the EPA’s current plans to implement a climate policy by May of 2012 don’t happen, then there will be no alternative option. This could be significant because Congress’ feelings about any carbon regulation has been cooling at about the same rate the planet’s been warming over the last few years.
The result of both the current political and legal realities is further proof that what the EPA decides and how the Senate reacts will be the ultimate showdown when it comes to climate policy. There may not be a “parallel track,” but the opportunity for the Senate to derail remains wide opened.
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.