Judgement On Clean Air Or Money

Last summer the Obama Administration finalized climate regulations for new and existing power plants under the clean air act. Those regulations targeted coal-fired power plants, the cost of energy went up significantly for all Americans but especially Utahns. The increase expense of energy has put more strain on the family, individuals, and businesses will destroy jobs and strain economic growth. All these consequences have been for nothing. No matter what you believe on the subject of man-made greenhouse emissions, the regulations will have a negligible impact—if any—on global temperatures. If the states would have more power over the regulation of emissions, it would lead to an economic growth not only in the nation but especially in Utah. Having more power on the state level is sometimes not even enough. For example Salt Lake County has a very high concentration of emission. Utah county has significantly less emission being released into the atmosphere. But we are taxed the same amount as they are. Sometimes putting power in the states can not adequately solve problems, but putting more power on the local level can lead to a more democratic

The Clean Air Act was the first major environmental law in the United States to include a provision for citizen suits. Numerous state and local governments have enacted similar legislation, either implementing federal programs or filling in locally important gaps in federal

The environment is an extremely important aspect of our nation today. American families have the legitimate right to an excellent quality of air, that we breathe. As a nation, Americans gravitate towards the pursuit of the prodigious dollar, before our environmental issues. This is a practice that has an urgency to be stopped, immediately. The pollution that is created by personnel transportation and the trucking industry is destroying our planet. The government has the Clean Air Act of 1970, but it is not satisfactory enough. America should be obligated to push for electric transportation and an electric trucking industry.

Subsequently to this, carbon dioxide emissions were set to be regulated under the EPA as well due to its effect on the surrounding biota and abiota, primarily concerning motor vehicle gas emissions and other industrial generators. Many power companies disputed the EPA’s regulation and question the legality of them. Once brought to the attention of the D.C. Circuit Court, the power company’s claims against the EPA were rejected by all the present judges, yet it still was accepted by the Supreme Court for review. Scalia’s opinion on this case deems the most interesting. He stated that the CAA has requirements specified for any such pollutant sources that can emit up to 250 tons per year; however, because the pollutant sources were previously specified in the past to encompass only air pollutants that were regulated, greenhouse gases were not affiliated with this. The EPA was able to navigate around this, but their proposed plan was still objected against. Overall, the court did gave right to the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but they were to be regulated as a pollution source that is subject to regulation. Consequently to Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg, and others stated that the EPA should hone the ability to broadly define any air pollutant; this would allow them to

On August 3, 2015, President Obama announced new carbon pollution standards for power plants under the Clean Power Plan (CPP).[1] The purpose of the plan was to decrease carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to promote better air quality. This plan will impact not only coal fired power plants and the coal industry, but also individuals who live around them and the greater populous. This paper seeks to answer if such a plan should go forward and the impacts of such a plan on the parties listed above. To answer this question, this paper will look

The United States Environmental Protection Agency is a government agency whose purpose of being created was to protect human health and the environment by enforcing regulation based on the laws of the state. The agency since its creation has given the US a lot of advantages, but has also brought about some disadvantages ("EPA at 40: Pros and cons - Los Angeles Ecopolitics” p. 4). One of the advantages brought about by the EPA is that industrial air pollutants have been controlled. By issuing regulations to the power plants the agency will significantly reduce air pollution caused by the plants. The control of solid waste disposal will also be advantageous to the country.

The EPA has the responsibility of keeping the American people's food pure and their health up to par. By the year 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency will have prevented over 230,000 premature deaths since 1990. The EPA provides many benefits for the everyday person that people usually do not recognize or just take for granted. For instance, thank the EPA for the clean water flowing into the sink and the disease free meat at the grocery store. Recently the White house decided to slash EPA funding by 31%. The EPA provides many benefits to be cutting their funding by such an amount. Not just to humans, but to the wildlife all around the country. It is likely that many species would have been extinct or endangered by know without the protection

During the late 1700s, many Americans advocated for social justice, economic empowerment, property rights and environmental protection. Their advocacy created a national phenomenon that empowered government and policymakers to execute policies aimed at solving these problems nationwide. The government again took action to enact numerous laws, some of which became the foundation for modern environmental policy and regulations in the United States. “On the national level, the first federal action to respond to public concerns about air quality was the Clean Air Act of 1955” (Longhurst and Lewis 2010, 39).The implementation of some of these newly created environmental laws began to interfere with state regulations, and as such, they often violated citizen’s property rights. Although such policy oftentimes violates citizen rights, it allows government and policymakers to respond to the growing population and market demand. Infringement on property rights did not just take root in the environmental sector in the 1800s. It started as a result of massive construction, inadequate hazardous waste disposal systems, and overpopulation due to urbanization and economic growth in the nineteenth century. It became clear that uncontrolled pollution, including underwater pollutions, led to the spread of environmental disease, thus affecting human health and safety.

If we cut off environmental regulations then this will also give the U.S. to have cheaper things and create new jobs for the environment and this is good because many Americans aren’t employed. The U.S. will have a better position in most thing and most importantly the health of the economy. The U.S. will also be able to control its environment and economy with no restrictive international environmental agreements. International organizations can work on themselves and make the best in their economy. The U.S. doesn’t have to support any environmental issues that might cause danger to its

Up until lately, air pollution has been accomplished solely in the controlling atmosphere. Consequently, the matter offers us an outstanding illustration of how strategies creation has worked in the past years; federal determinations have helped states recognize the sources of air pollution and the influences of those discharges (Dale, 2015, chap.3 sum). The Clean Air Act remains to progress to replicate new discipline and deliver technology-based values for guidelines. Current struggles to increase the management to contain market-based, tradable documents also give us a respected intimation about the route for control. The global field has so far delivered insignificant but vital provision for state, government, and resident labors to administer

The role of the EPA from its inception to current mission is to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work, national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information, federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively, environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy, all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state,

The United States Environmental policy within the last 25 years has changed considerably due to events and politics. Things such as global warming, air pollution, water pollution, etc... has gotten the attention of more and more American citizens as well as celebrities and has created numerous environmental activist groups. These drastic changes have also brought about movies being made and telling the tale of how these changes will affect humans and the environment in the long term. One of the changes that President Trump is slowly trying to implement is eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (Green, 2017) The purpose of this agency is to create and enforce laws passed by Congress that protect humans and the environment. (Green,

Palmer, Brian. "EPA Is Going to the Supreme Court to Defend Life-saving Limits on Power Plant Pollution." OnEarth. OnEarth, 23 Mar. 2015. Web. 19 Aug. 2015. http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/supreme-court-epa-mercury-emissions

In comparison to the Ford Pinto case, the Exporting Pollution case brings up the same issue, is profit more important than human lives? Some people, like Lee Iacocca and Lawrence Summers believe that money should be placed before the loss of innocent individuals. I however, do not believe that money should in any circumstance be put before the life of someone.Taking care of the environment is of extreme importance because it helps to take care of us and all living creatures. Without a healthy environment to live in, it would not matter how much money we had in our pockets because we would eventually die. For this reason, caring for our environment is more important than economic expansion.

From the declaration of independence; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to modern environmental regulations. These policies and acts are intended to help the nation not hurt it. Automobile emissions deregulation challenges our core morality creating more pollution, moves the nation back, and pushes our value of a citizen's life and health into question. the In 1970 the nation set standards and criteria for pollutants with the Clean Air Act. This established air quality control regions, and emissions inventories. It is imperative that as a nation to strive for a better tomorrow. With an uncertain and impulsive presidential administration, it is even more of the citizen's responsibility to push for regulation to protect themselves and the children of the future. Currently, an environmental policy like the clean air act of 1970 is still in use, but there is a trend to appease corporations with deep lobbying pockets. The executive branch is not absent from the revolving door of Washington D.C., and the only way to fight it is through state and local legislation. There are systems in place in this quasi-democratic government for the public to be heard and their prayers answered. Automobile emissions deregulation may only be the start to this wicked problem of environmental policy destruction, profits over people should never be abused. Together nationally banding together to challenge the ideas of corporate lobbying and destruction of our beautiful country cannot go