Owl's Head Pollution Control, N.Y., 1951. (New York State Archives. Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Inc. New York office.)
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed yesterday to reject a lawsuit brought on by six states, New York City, and several land trusts, seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from major power plants. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that under the Clean Air Act, the case must be addressed by the Environmental Protection Agency, rather than by the courts. The Supreme Court maintains their 2007 ruling that only the EPA can dictate regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, but meanwhile Congress is trying to strip the EPA of its very ability to regulate these emissions.
Joining us with more on the case is Robert Hernan, author of "This Borrowed Earth: Lessons from the Fifteen Worst Environmental Disasters Around the World," and former Assistant Attorney General in the Environmental Protection Bureau of the state of New York. Also with us is Jeff Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University and the author of "Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America." Rosen will discuss this case and another notable Supreme Court ruling from this week, from the landmark class action suit against Wal-Mart.
Kambiz Hosseini: Iran's Jon Stewart on the Presidential Election
P is for Prison: Sesame Street and Overpopulation in America's Jails
Overpopulation of Prisons, The History of Privacy & Democracy, Will Snowden Be Extradited?
Arming the Syrian Rebels, Voices Against the War on Drugs, The Eiffel Tower as a Musical Instrument
Daniel Ellsberg Discusses Snowden N.S.A. Leak
The show is a co-production of WNYC Radio and Public Radio International, in collaboration with New York Times Radio and WGBH Boston.
Major funding provided by:
Comments [2]
I listened with disbelief to your biased and incorrect report about the WalMart class action lawsuit.
It described it as a 5-4 decision along partisan lines, when in fact it was 9-0 (a separate 5-4 ruling had to due with whether it might proceed under a different argument).
Also, I noted you had members of the class action comment, but no comment about how these huge class actions blackmail businesses into settling against very weak cases, because the cost of losing can destroy the victim. Also, any report on how much litigation affects all costs (health care, for example), was not mentioned.
The supreme court did not say that no class action could happen, only that class action suits where the only linkage is the sex are not allowed.
Individuals could pool as a class for a store or larger region, if they can show a true class status outside of a chromosome.
This kind of tendentious reporting (not the first time by any means) leads many to discount your other, often excellent reporting. I'm not a right winger by any means, but I do understand both sides of this issue.
An issue this important is not well presented by the "company bad, female worker good" narrative you seem intent on delivering.
Republican policies on environmental issues are short sighted and pig headed and the US is losing the race for sustainable innovation and manufacturing to other countries who see the future "without blinders." Hope we can afford Chinese solar water heaters and Spanish wind generators as we descend into 3rd world status ruled by our billionaire overlords.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.