Introduction – Environmental Protection - Environmental Victory
This reflective paper will address several issues associated with environmental protection and the perceived environmental victory of a Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to support stricter emissions controls. First, it will discuss how the law must balance competing scientific opinions and make decisions in light of uncertainty. Next, this paper will discuss the different stakeholders who have concern in this situation, delineating their interests, as well as which stakeholder should have the priority position. Finally, it will discuss the effect on State regulations if the Federal government, through the Environmental Protection Agency, changes the standards for air pollution …show more content…
Essentially, this decision rejected the Environmental Protection Agency 's (EPA) view that it lacked authority to regulate those emissions. And, despite the court determination to stop short of ordering the EPA to set mandatory limits, the justices rejected the Bush administration 's claim that voluntary programs were an effective substitute (Egelko, 2007, para 2). The issues were whether emissions (carbon dioxide) were covered under the Clean Air Act and whether the EPA had the authority to regulate them. Clearly, the rule for this issue was the Clean Air Act as well as the Supreme Court’s decision. The analysis was that the Supreme Court had to balance the findings of the scientific community against the desire of the administration (and thus the EPA) to determine the need for the EPA to regulate the emissions. As discussed, the conclusion was that the EPA did, indeed, have to establish a program to regulate those …show more content…
According to Kammel and Rauwald, the auto industry, and Volkswagen in particular, suffered devastating stock losses after the 2015 pollution test cheating crisis that led to a leadership change (VW emissions issues spread to gasoline cars, 2015, para 4). Clearly, the auto industry’s interests lay in production costs and stockholders being content with profit. The EPA’s interest rests in its ability to implement and enforce clean air regulations, knowing full well that these regulatory means may increase the cost for more vehicles in the production and sale to consumers. Next, the sitting presidential administration has a stake since they usually promise to address global warming – they want to leave office with positive marks in this area. Alternatively, the court system, specifically the Supreme Court has a stake since their decision sets precedent for future similar cases. And finally, the people of the U.S. have an interest in not only the drive for clean air, but reasonable prices for their vehicles. However, in this situation the stakeholder who should have the priority position is the Supreme Court since it is a check and balance to the Executive branch, as well as laying the groundwork through laws to do the most good for the people in this
This reflective paper will address several issues associated with environmental protection and the perceived environmental victory of a Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to support stricter emissions controls. First, it will discuss how the law must balance competing scientific opinions and make decisions in light of uncertainty. Next, this paper will discuss the different stakeholders who have concern in this situation, delineating their interests, as well as which stakeholder should have the priority position. Finally, it will discuss the effect on State regulations if the Federal government, through the Environmental Protection Agency, changes the standards for air pollution …show more content…
Essentially, this decision rejected the Environmental Protection Agency 's (EPA) view that it lacked authority to regulate those emissions. And, despite the court determination to stop short of ordering the EPA to set mandatory limits, the justices rejected the Bush administration 's claim that voluntary programs were an effective substitute (Egelko, 2007, para 2). The issues were whether emissions (carbon dioxide) were covered under the Clean Air Act and whether the EPA had the authority to regulate them. Clearly, the rule for this issue was the Clean Air Act as well as the Supreme Court’s decision. The analysis was that the Supreme Court had to balance the findings of the scientific community against the desire of the administration (and thus the EPA) to determine the need for the EPA to regulate the emissions. As discussed, the conclusion was that the EPA did, indeed, have to establish a program to regulate those …show more content…
According to Kammel and Rauwald, the auto industry, and Volkswagen in particular, suffered devastating stock losses after the 2015 pollution test cheating crisis that led to a leadership change (VW emissions issues spread to gasoline cars, 2015, para 4). Clearly, the auto industry’s interests lay in production costs and stockholders being content with profit. The EPA’s interest rests in its ability to implement and enforce clean air regulations, knowing full well that these regulatory means may increase the cost for more vehicles in the production and sale to consumers. Next, the sitting presidential administration has a stake since they usually promise to address global warming – they want to leave office with positive marks in this area. Alternatively, the court system, specifically the Supreme Court has a stake since their decision sets precedent for future similar cases. And finally, the people of the U.S. have an interest in not only the drive for clean air, but reasonable prices for their vehicles. However, in this situation the stakeholder who should have the priority position is the Supreme Court since it is a check and balance to the Executive branch, as well as laying the groundwork through laws to do the most good for the people in this