Share this Post:

unEARTHED. The Earthjustice Blog

High Court Turns Deaf Ear To Climate Change Attack

    SIGN-UP for our latest news and action alerts:
   Please leave this field empty

Facebook Fans

Related Blog Entries

by Liz Judge:

Today, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling once again affirmed the Environmental Protection Agency as the most rightful and authorized regulator of clima...

by Liz Judge:
Care About Climate Change, Clean Air? Call Your Senators!

The Senate votes tomorrow on four pieces of legislation that all aim to block or delay Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action to reduce the carb...

by Liz Judge:
Cleaning Up Biggest Polluters - Will Congress Have Our Backs?

As I write this, the Senate is debating an amendment to a small business bill that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from setting limits...

Earthjustice on Twitter

View Terry Winckler's blog posts
18 October 2013, 1:14 PM
Industry falls short in challenges over health and car/truck emissions
The Supreme Court building. (Architect of the Capitol)

This week the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed industry by refusing to hear challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that carbon dioxide and other climate change pollutants endanger our health. The court also rejected attacks on carbon pollution limits for cars and trucks – limits that respond to the court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, and are important parts of the agency’s efforts to curb such pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The court’s action also provides a solid footing for future EPA action to set standards for other major sources of climate change pollution like power plants, refineries, and oil and gas operations. A 2011 Supreme Court ruling confirmed EPA's authority to set such standards.

"Power plants are the nation's largest emitters of carbon pollution, and EPA must act promptly to limit those harmful emissions," said Howard Fox of Earthjustice, co-counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

The high court did accept review of one industry challenge.

At issue is EPA's determination that permits are required prior to construction of new major power plants and industrial facilities that will emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. The permits will include plant-specific requirements to limit climate change pollution using available technologies.

Industry claims the permit requirement lacks legal basis, but the lower court decisively rejected that argument. Earthjustice will vigorously oppose the industry position before the Supreme Court.

great news about time

scalia, and his little gang of Traitors of the 99%, thomas,roberts,alito&kennedy, must have a waffling member. thomas and alito are brain-dead. Got to kennedy or roberts. Thank God, somebody is showing some empathetic, good sense. Very rare with this Court.

Use algae to scrub the CO2 from these fossil fuel power plants!
It is do-able !

Citizens all around the world need to keep up the fight against pollution of its earth, water, air and our food. Know how your legislators are voting on these issues. Know who is getting the big bucks for their re-election campaigns from these industries that only care about their bottom line. Vote them out and stand behind those who are for stronger legislation to keep us and our environment safe for future generations.

Enough is enough

This is the best news I've heard all week!!!!

This is the best news I've heard all week!!!!

20 October 2013


You are GREATLY appreciated in this issue in helping keep such Big Industry Polluters IN MAJOR CHECK.

Here's a lot of prayers and plain old GOOD VIBES to keep the Permit Requirements INTACT.





Yes! This is great news. Thank you for all your great work.

Great news! However, the description of this as a response to an industry challenge to an EPA finding makes me worry that this finding could be reversed if the head of the EPA were to be appointed by someone with little regard for global warming issues. Imagine for a moment who Ted Cruz might appoint to run this important agency. Is the Clean Air Act written strongly enough to ensure that future administrations can be legally compelled to effectively act, or is stronger legislation needed?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <p> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.