scotus

  1. Climate Change
  2. Federal
  3. People
  4. Planet
  5. Politics and Policy

What to know Congress passed the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) in 1955, which funded federal air pollution research but did not require or give power to the federal government to regulate air pollution.

The Clear Air Act of 1963 permitted the government to control air pollution in certain capacities. In 1999, several citizens, conservation, and environmental groups filed a petition for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate air pollution under this act.

The EPA denied the petition, and Massachusetts and several other states filed a class action lawsuit against the EPA to fight for the American people’s right to live in safe environments with clear air.

After a lengthy debate over the ambiguity of the Clean Air Act’s language, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts in a 5-4 decision.

Key Takeaways The EPA cannot decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not specifically enumerated in the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Some of the progressive rules that resulted from this case, such as the Clean Car and Clean Truck Standards, were recently minimized by the Trump administration in the beginning stages of the pandemic.

Bottom line The government will continue its ableism (discrimination in favor of able-bodied people) without public pressure and scrutiny, so we must come together to vote and advocate for accelerated climate change action.

Dig deeper --> 3 min

  1. Cities and Communities
  2. Federal
  3. People
  4. Politics and Policy

What to know With the fate of the Clean Water Act hanging in the balance, the Supreme Court delivered a momentous verdict on County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund on Thursday, April 23.

The case centers on the County of Maui’s belief that the CWA only covers direct pollution discharge, not pollution that travels through groundwater. Because the county didn’t dump their wastewater directly into the ocean, they viewed any punishment as completely unjustified. The Trump administration decided to go against 40 years of EPA precedent and sided with the County of Maui.

Why it matters The decision sets a precedent for regulating indirect sources of pollution. Past decisions will need to be re-evaluated, like the 2018 appellate court rulings that ruled against requiring permits for coal ash impoundments.

Bottom line We are privileged to live in a country with a justice system that enables an environmental group to overrule a government-run wastewater treatment plant. Behind the scenes, groups like Earthjustice fight daily to represent our interests and protect the planet. 

We must continue to educate ourselves on the nuances of the environmental laws that exist to protect us.

Dig deeper → 4 min

Unlock our weekly newsletter

By subscribing you agree to our Privacy Policy.





Top Posts

3 clear reasons why overpopulation is a myth
Better brands: Is Beyond Meat Sustainable?
A Closer Look at Digital Carbon Credit Coins
The truth about the environmental impact of takeout food

Latest

Sustainable Review is copyright material. All rights reserved.

X

Login

Welcome to SR.

Like, comment, discuss, follow your favorite stories.
Become an Eco-Warrior.
Registration is closed.

All your sustainability needs, tied up once a week.

Get it in an email.

Access our Weekly recap with digestible news, articles and resources around sustainability.

By subscribing you agree to our Privacy Policy.

15% off. Just for SR readers.

Save 15% off green household products at Repurpose.com. Click here to save.
repurpose sustainable review
Close Bitnami banner
Bitnami