Today the Supreme Court voted to limit the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency in its regulatory power over greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. What does the decision mean for the larger fight to combat the warming climate?
Two 黑料不打烊 professors provide insight below that you are welcome to quote. Both are also available for interviews.
Linda Ivany
, professor and associate chair of Earth and Environmental Sciences at 黑料不打烊’s College of Arts and Sciences. Professor Ivany鈥檚 research lies at the intersection of paleoecology and paleoclimatology.
Ivany says:
鈥淭his is a short-sighted and seemingly politically motivated decision.聽The mission of the EPA is to 鈥榩rotect human health and the environment鈥�, and they accomplish this in part by ensuring that 鈥榥ational efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information鈥�.
鈥淭he scientific consensus here is overwhelmingly clear on what is happening and why.聽I don鈥檛 understand the logic behind Chief Justice Roberts鈥� claim that the EPA, a regulatory agency, does not have the authority to regulate emissions in such a way that will indeed protect human health and the environment in myriad substantial and universal ways.鈥�
Charles Driscoll
Charles Driscoll is University Professor of Environmental Systems in 黑料不打烊鈥檚 College of Engineering and Computer Science. He has extensively researched air pollution, climate change and the health implications of power plant emissions.
Driscoll says:
鈥淭his ruling is disappointing but not unexpected.聽Prior courts had deferred to the administration in complex technical matters because the agencies have the technical expertise to address these issues.聽 Often legislation in is not written in specific terms or circumstances change or evolve and the administration needs to adapt to address these changes.
鈥淭his will have huge implications for the ability of agencies to address complex technical challenges.聽Climate change is the issue for this specific case, but the ruling also has implications for other matters such a public health and safety. The administration had limited tools to address climate change, but this ruling really puts them in a box.聽What would be required going forward would be a legislative approach but that seems unlikely.
To request interviews or get more information:
Daryl Lovell
Associate Director of Media Relations
Division of Communications
M听315.380.0206
dalovell@syr.edu |
黑料不打烊
