Clean Power Act Under Attack
In the U.S., perhaps the most important legal battle pertaining to environmental sustainability and climate change is the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s efforts in this arena, the Clean Power Act. In essence, this grants the Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate levels of carbon dioxide emitted from coal- and gas-fired power plants. Predictably, Big Oil and related entities have deployed an enormous array of legal power, in a desperate attempt to overturn the act; in particular, they claim that the EPA has violated the plain letter of the Clean Air Act last year when it made final the CO2 regulations.
Needless to say, time is not on the side of the environmental movement; every delay, legal proceedings or otherwise, damages the health and safety of the world’s people that much further.
Craig,
I hate finding myself a critic of your well-intentioned observations, especially when I agree with the message you are tying to convey.
However, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, it must be pointed out that this is not a contest between “Big Oil” and the EPA.
In fact, only some oil companies are peripherally involved, and even then are relatively minor participants.
The main players in this contest are the US Coal Industry and those US States with major coal mining. Support for this challenge is being provided by those who believe that the EPA, influenced by the administration, is attempting to assume powers not granted by congress in the legislation and that the Obama administration is acting acting beyond it’s administrative remit.These are interests who are concerned at what they see as a trend for the Executive branch to seek ever expanding power, bypassing the checks and balances provided by congress.
Rightly or wrongly, every State, organization and individual has the right to challenge if they believe and administration is exceeding or abusing it’s power. The principle of rule by law, is the foundation of any democratic society and must be upheld.
The administration will argue that the legislation does empower the regulator (EPA), and indeed it’s the duty of the regulator (EPA) to effectively use the power granted by congress to fulfill it’s interpretation of the objectives of the legislation.
It will be an onerous duty for the US justice system to decide. The decision is not just about the environment, but about Executive power.
It’s also a legitimate topic for public debate and you do your country and the planet, a great service by encouraging that debate.
All I ask, is if you could be a little more accurate, and a little less emotionally partisan is your analysis 🙂
Well, you’re right that, in terms of what’s visible, the coal industry is more behind this than Big Oil. Having said that, I would bet a thousand dollars against a dime that the oil companies are supporting this effort with an enormous amount of unseen resources. How can I be so sure? It’s just common sense. Our society is in the process of phasing out fossil fuels, and environmental regulation is going to lie at the crux of all this.
Re: All I ask, is if you could be a little more accurate, and a little less emotionally partisan is your analysis—
I need to make it clear that all my posts, in one form or another, are “emotionally partisan analysis.” I AM emotional about the subject, and I really do believe in the importance of protecting the environment, that our democracy is headed for ruins (if it’s not already there), etc. None of this at all likely to change.
In other words, I’m not a “reporter,” and I don’t represent myself as one. Yes, I try to support my beliefs with facts, but a whole litany of triple-checked facts is not what I offer.
Craig,
I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t be passionate about your beliefs, but without remaining reasonably objective much of your effectiveness to “sell” such an important message get lost.
Like you, I am also committed to protecting the environment. Unlike you I don’t believe that the US or the English speaking world is in any danger of extinguishing “democracy” .
The system is far too robust and flexible to allow the concept of elected representative government to be damaged by minor aberrations or setbacks. I fact, in my lifetime I have witnessed the at times erratic, but steady advance of democratic principles not just in the English speaking world, but the entire world.
Take heart at the improvements within your own nation. The US is a far more democratic society than at any time in it’s history.
Perfect, certainly not ! But improving, very definitely. Each new challenge from without and within always threatens to curtail civil liberties at the height of the crises, but fortunately the democratic principles quickly reassert themselves and society moves forward.
Well, we simply disagree on how democratic the US is. I’ve stated my case.
Of course, I still respect you and your viewpoints.
Craig,
I’m sorry I just can’t share your pessimism. Comparing the last 10 decades we can see clear evidence of the advance of democracy and the demise of undemocratic practices.
1910-20 Women barred from voting and elected office. African Americans denied the most basic rights and opportunities in most American states. Discrimination against Jews etc endemic. Tammy Hall and most cities controlled by corrupt political bosses.
1920-1930 Prohibition era America saw the rise of organized crime and widespread corruption. On the plus side, Citizenship was granted to native Americans. Women gained the vote, and could legally enter otherwise closed professions and institutions.
1930-1940 Hays Code introduced Prohibition repealed The US Supreme Court overturned previous decisions and in United States v. Darby Lumber Co upheld the right for a minimum wage. Supreme Court nominee John J. Parker rejected for his white supremacist attitude, and the passing of a federal anti-lynching law. Tammany Hall started it’s demise with the election of Mayor La Guardia.
1940-1950 Miscegenation laws still exist in 32 states but become under attack. Executive Order 9981 issued on July 26, 1948, abolished racial discrimination in the United States Armed Forces.
1950-1960 McCarthyism defeated and Justice Earl Warren appointed Chief Justice. The court began an era of actively expanding civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power beginning with Brown v Board of Education. Growing victories for liberalizing the arts, science and civil rights.
1960- 1970 A period of huge social change and advances in freedom, race relations and liberty. The Civil Rights act, Miranda v. Arizona, abolition of the Hays office. An African American, Thurgood Marshall appointed to the Supreme Court. Ir was an era of huge changes and advances in freedom. Clean Air Act (1963)
1970 -1980 Roe v Wade, Watergate, the resignation of Nixon, The rise of “class actions” ,United States Environmental Protection Agency created.
Just looking back at the way the the US practiced democracy in the 20th century, even allowing for set backs like the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay, the first wo decades of the 21st century are still more liberal and just than the 20th century.
Democracy, is still very robust in the US today.
Cheer up, your nation has survived greater challenges.
I hear you, and I appreciate the historical summary. But the fact remains that at this point the will of the American people is irrelevant in the lawmaking process. There is no sense of the word “democracy” in which that’s the case.
All the advancements we’ve made over the many decades are irrelevant, as long as what voters want from government has no sway over the action taken by the people in Congress.
There are hundreds of potential examples, but the poster child is the fact that 89% of Americans demand stricter background checks for prospective gun owners, but the issue consistently fails in Congress.
Craig,
Ah ha, I think I understand your confusion. Cheery picking information from selective opinion polls without analysis to support a preconceived concept will always produce a distorted result.
The framers of the constitution didn’t envisage government by opinion polls ! Nor would they today !
Just because congress doesn’t act on a newspaper article or the findings of an opinion poll, is not a sign of deterioration of democratic representative government, in fact it’s evidence of the legislators doing their duty.
Even your 87% isn’t really accurate. True, legislators should listen to their electorate, ie; the people who vote, and they are. Analysis of voting intentions on support for increased gun control legislation remains very dismal around 31%. and even less when applied to the electoral spread. The issue ranks pretty low priority among the concerns of American voters.
It’s all about the question you ask, and who you ask when conducting an opinion poll.
Craig, I ‘m a supporter of strict gun control. Australia has much tougher gun control laws, especially for hand guns and Auto,semi-auto weapons. The UK, Australia and NZ do not share the passion for guns that is such a deep part of US culture. (the UK and NZ police remain largely unarmed).
But, I don’t see Congress not approving legislation increasing gun control as a failure of American democracy, just a failure by anti-gun advocates to sell their case to the US electorate.
In the end, there’s only one poll that matters, and that’s on election day.