The US constitutional system could pose a major obstacle to addressing catastrophic threats. A new set of cases shows why
President Joe Biden exhorted other world leaders to treat climate change as an “existential threat to human existence” at the Cop26 global climate summit on Monday. Yet his administration may soon have its hands tied as it seeks to address that threat at home. That’s because just three days earlier, the US supreme court agreed to hear a set of cases challenging the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose carbon emissions limits on existing power plants.
Court watchers expect the court’s conservative majority, consistent with a string of rulings in favor of big business and against regulation, to side against the EPA. If so, the decision will highlight how the court could stand in the way of meaningful efforts to address the climate crisis for decades to come. More generally, that outcome would underscore how the supreme court and broader features of the US constitutional system pose a significant obstacle to addressing catastrophic threats.
Daniel Epps is Treiman professor of law at Washington University in St Louis. He previously served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy and co-hosts the supreme court podcast Divided Argument
Continue reading...Know the benifits of facebook marketing ---http://bit.ly/2RgChw3
0 Comments