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 鶹ƵUniversity 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 鶹ƵUniversity’s College of Arts and Sciences. Professor Ivany’s research lies at the intersection of paleoecology and paleoclimatology.
Ivany says:
“This is a short-sighted and seemingly politically motivated decision. The mission of the EPA is to ‘protect human health and the environment’, and they accomplish this in part by ensuring that ‘national efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information’.
“The scientific consensus here is overwhelmingly clear on what is happening and why. I don’t understand the logic behind Chief Justice Roberts’ 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.”
Charles Driscoll
Charles Driscoll is University Professor of Environmental Systems in 鶹ƵUniversity’s College of Engineering and Computer Science. He has extensively researched air pollution, climate change and the health implications of power plant emissions.
Driscoll says:
“This ruling is disappointing but not unexpected. Prior courts had deferred to the administration in complex technical matters because the agencies have the technical expertise to address these issues. Often legislation in is not written in specific terms or circumstances change or evolve and the administration needs to adapt to address these changes.
“This will have huge implications for the ability of agencies to address complex technical challenges. 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. 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
M315.380.0206
dalovell@syr.edu |
鶹ƵUniversity
