That's why, although the science is nearly 200 years old, denial didn't take off until the 1990s. Our lifestyle and economy is built on fossil fuels and many will do anything to retain it. Climate denial was only ever a palatable smokescreen for the real problem: solution aversion. The same physics that explains how climate changes also explains how stoves heat food and how airplanes fly. EPA, by Rachel Rothschild - Yale Journal on RegulationĪ new study confirms a shift I've seen online: from rejecting the science of climate change to rejecting its solutions.īecause it never was about rejecting the science. Why the Supreme Court Avoided Using Traditional Tools of Statutory Interpretation in West Virginia v.
The major questions doctrine, then, has allowed the Supreme Court to try to have it both ways, keeping the door shut on federal common law litigation by maintaining EPA’s authority under section 111(d) while removing the most promising regulatory approach to quickly and cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas pollution." Rachel's observations are particularly salient for those of us keeping an eye on Suncor Energy v. She explains that if the Court had simply held that the text of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act did not authorize EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, then the Court "would have overturned American Electric Power and allowed suits against fossil fuel companies to proceed under federal common law. EPA and its fresh articulation of a Major Questions Doctrine. Earlier this year, Rachel Rothschild at Michigan Law wrote an excellent analysis of the majority opinion in WV v.
0 kommentar(er)
