What is the history of the lawsuit?
In 2015, during the Obama administration, the EPA finalized a flagship climate rule, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, which sought to curtail emissions from the electricity sector to at least 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The plan would have set reductions targets for US states; to meet them, coal- and gas-burning power plants could have upgraded their technology to boost efficiency and decrease emissions, but the bulk of the reductions would have needed to come from electric utilities shifting towards more renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar. The Obama EPA said that this ‘generation shifting’ approach was consistent with the Clean Air Act, a law that requires the agency to consider the best-available technologies when crafting regulations to curb air pollution.

The more industry-friendly Trump administration repealed the Clean Power Plan in 2018 and replaced it with a weaker version dubbed the Affordable Clean Energy plan, which more narrowly interpreted the Clean Air Act. It also limited pollution controls to technologies that could be installed at individual power plants. Critics said it would do little, if anything, to encourage a broader shift towards clean energy.

The situation came to a head on Trump’s final day in office in early 2021, when a federal appeals court in Washington DC dismissed the Trump plan and rejected its repeal of the original Clean Power Plan. The new Supreme Court case, West Virginia vs Environmental Protection Agency, hinges on the fact that the appeals court expressly rejected the Trump administration’s arguments that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to require generation shifting across the electricity industry.

Continue Reading

It’s also important to remember that climate change poses a major national security threat, with the Defense Department and other federal officials warning last year that worsening climate-fueled hazards are likely to drive a surge in global migration, stoking political instability. That helps explain why the U.S. Army released its first-ever climate strategy this month, setting a goal of slashing its planet-warming emissions in half and powering all bases with climate-friendly electricity by 2030.

Continue Reading

“If nothing else will drive the message home about the present threat that climate change poses to our global society, this should,” said Lachlan McIver, a Doctors Without Borders physician who was not involved in writing the Lancet report. “Your health, my health, the health of our parents and our children are at stake.”

Continue Reading

October 18th, 2021 Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, has found himself in a position of great influence, given the 50-50 split in the US Senate and the administration’s desire to pass a $3.5 trillion bill that includes a number of measures to combat global warming. Currently, the part of the bill that he opposes is the Clean Electricity Performance Program, or CEPP, which would reward utilities for increasing their production of clean energy, and penalize those that don’t. His argument is that companies should not be rewarded for something that they are already doing, but his real concern is that companies that don’t produce more clean energy should not be penalized. In the long-standing tradition of American politics, he’s taking care of his constituency at the expense of the country. Manchin, after all, represents West Virginia, the nation’s second largest coal producer and the fifth largest energy producer, according to the US Energy Information Administration. More than 90% of the energy produced there comes from coal-fired power plants, and Manchin, Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is very dedicated in his efforts to preserve that mix. Not surprisingly, energy companies have supported him, contributing nearly $500,000 to his campaign in the most recent election cycle, another long-standing tradition of American politics. Yet even with Manchin’s considerable assistance, the coal industry in West Virginia is fighting a rear-guard action. The state produced a total of 93 million tons in 2018, well down from peak production of 169 million tons in 1990. Employment in the mining industry has fallen by about a third over the past decade as well. More than one-third of the state’s production in recent years has been exported, chiefly to China, India, and South Korea. Renewable energy installations, although small, are increasing, with wind generation recently overtaking hydropower. The state suffers, however, from limited wind potential, and other forms of renewable energy, such as solar and biomass, account for less than 0.01% of utility-scale generation. This gives the coal and utility industries greater influence than one would expect. Manchin’s dilemma, therefore, is whether to continue protecting what most acknowledge is a dying industry, or to assist in the transition to a new paradigm, one that will provide jobs to a state with a 16% poverty rate and will help reduce the threat of global warming to the country and the world. Unfortunately, it appears that he has chosen to protect the special interests of his contributors over the well-being of the country. Energy and resource management

Continue Reading

While there is no doubt that the prevention of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation should sit at the top of any public policy, industrial strategy and individual behaviour, just like reducing the consumption of energy, this proposition might mislead the public into thinking that waste can suddenly disappear if only we had the will to make it happen. Despite these unattainable expectations, the ‘Zero Waste’ concept has become a viral and omnipresent phrase in recent years. A Google search of this term shows around half a million hits, as of March 2020, and countless government and non-governmental organisation initiatives worldwide. Zero Waste seems to be the only acceptable aim for today’s politicians who embrace an environmentally friendly platform. As a result, countries and municipalities all over the globe have committed themselves to achieving the goal of Zero Waste. So far, however, nobody has managed it, and given the many scientific and practical roadblocks, no one ever will.

Continue Reading

to top