It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court puts Obama's clean power plan on hold

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The Supreme Court has decided to place Obama's green & clean projects on hold until lower courts decide pending lawsuits.

This addresses the 27-State suit against the Administration.

The SCOTUS voted 5-4 and it sends a clear signal that the merits are strong in the cases.

The White House said they "disagree".

If any of this does get to the Supreme Court later, Obama will be long gone by the time anything ever gets resolved. Unless a new President/Congress reverses the whole shebang.


Supreme Court puts Obama's clean power plan on hold



A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.

The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab."

By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.


Sour grapes again







posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

There's a whole lot of 'Stop 0bama' going on right now. I don't get it. Why wait seven years and then say, "Enough."

Something's afoot I tell ya!!



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

because 7 years ago when we were screaming for the reps to stop Obama no one listened and called us right-wing nut jobs lol



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: xuenchen

There's a whole lot of 'Stop 0bama' going on right now. I don't get it. Why wait seven years and then say, "Enough."

Something's afoot I tell ya!!

Yet, some say that Obama's woes are all due to the obstructionist Republicans.... since he was first elected. He had a Democrat led House and Senate for his first two years in office.

It is all theatre anyway. The D's and R's are all members of the same club.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
So the cost to the states would be Billions of dollars. I'm curious if there is a study somewhere that estimates how much these green changes would cost each state.

Presumably these costs would be borne by both the states themselves as well as various industries in each state. Then those costs would be passed on to the consumer. It would be interesting to see what the estimated bottom-line cost is for each state's citizen.

Then as a comparison it would be useful to see the estimated long-term cost of Climate Change impact on each state versus the cost of cleaning up greenhouse gas emissions now. This of course requires a prediction of how the short-term domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions affects long-term Climate Change response to those changes.

I think information like this is necessary to determine whether the economy and the American consumer is able to afford this right now. There are other short-term to medium-term critical problems that also need to be addressed like America's crumbling infrastructure.

-dex



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Someone needs to explain to me how destroying US business's more than they already all pushing a lie.

Is suppose to 'save' the planet' when people from other countries are doing WORSE than this nation is?

Importing products made from 'dirty' energy, and making energy costs here HIGHER.

Good for the Scotus. They occasionally get some things right.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Well, this must have been very stressful upon the judges involved.




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Maybe that Scotus ruling was the straw that broke the camels back, and how we ended up with a Scotus vacancy.

I wouldn't put it past the current admin.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley



So the cost to the states would be Billions of dollars. I'm curious if there is a study somewhere that estimates how much these green changes would cost each state.

The cost won't be to the states but rather to the privately owned corporations that are polluting our planet. So it's profit over the health of the people just like usual.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The timing is certainly unfortunate.
Yet, Justice Scalia did not seem one to be deterred
even if his opinion found no favor with his friends.

The circumstances as reported so far seem very sketchy,
too many questions unanswered, and perhaps there is
just a lot that went unreported. However, as you and I well
know one does not just find a peaceful looking person in bed
with unwrinkled bed clothes and a pillow over his head without
coming to the immediate thought "something could be amiss".

The "Climate Change" Agenda is far reaching into all sectors
of power...we need look no further than recent events at Paris
No shortage of folks who would have been set back by
the ruling Scalia tipped to halt, or at least delay the Agenda.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010


The cost won't be to the states but rather to the privately owned corporations that are polluting our planet. So it's profit over the health of the people just like usual.

First, let me say that I'm really not at all familiar with Obama's executive orders with respect to greenhouse gas emission mitigation. However, I assume that they are mostly concerned with power generation plants and other energy suppliers.

So, while the states themselves may not incur any direct costs with respect to the new standards, everyone will be indirectly impacted by the changes necessary to meet the new standards.

When the energy suppliers make these mandated changes to their facilities, the capital costs of those changes as well as higher generation costs will be passed on to its customers. Those costs will not be absorbed into their existing cost structure.

While I'm certainly not averse to slightly higher energy costs to mitigate toxic pollutants, I have some reservations about the extra costs that will be incurred for greenhouse gas mitigation.

I'll admit that I do question the conclusion that anthropogenic influences are the primary forcing component of climate change. I have a "gut feeling" that there are other first order effects that are currently not well understood.

Having said that, I think that limiting greenhouse gas emissions is a laudable goal. But, for now, I don't think the general populace of the US can afford the extra costs. The US is considered a rich country by most of the rest of the world, and thus it is believed that it could easily afford the changes necessary to pursue the CO2 reduction goals. However, those perceptions could not be further from the truth. The vast majority of the riches associated with this nation are held by a very small fraction of the people. However, the cost of these changes would be borne overwhelmingly by the rest of the population, including the middle and lower income classes. And people of those income levels can scarcely afford these extra costs.

I posed several questions in my original post. In order to justify these extra costs, I would like to have some additional information about the alternatives. The US cannot bear these costs alone. Nor can the US single-handedly reduce global greenhouse levels.

-dex



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: burntheships

Maybe that Scotus ruling was the straw that broke the camels back, and how we ended up with a Scotus vacancy.

I wouldn't put it past the current admin.


Were there any environmental controversies in Presidio County or that part of West Texas that were on the table during Scalia's visit? Were any of those people there involved in some controversial environmental issue that may have been contrary to Scalia's views?



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join