A weekly reckoning with life in a warming world—and the fight to save it |
|
|
|
|
Emissions spew from a coal-fired power plant in Baltimore. Mark Wilson/Getty |
|
|
|
|
|
Last week’s Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency was a blow to environmental advocates. In the 6–3 decision, the court said that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was wrong: The section of the act the EPA has relied on in planning to cap power plant emissions doesn’t actually grant the EPA that authority. But if you haven’t read it yet, I’d like to direct your attention to Kate Aronoff’s follow-up piece. This ruling, she pointed out, could have been a lot worse. “Roberts doesn’t call into question the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide in general or even the best way to do that—even using other Clean Air Act provisions,” she wrote. As administrative and environmental law expert Jody Freeman told Kate, “There is, relatively speaking, a silver lining here.… What’s important is that clearly the EPA still has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases,” just not in the exact way the Obama administration was intending. |
|
|
|
|
That’s not to say this decision is good news. With greenhouse gas concentrations at record levels and federal climate legislation stalled, any delay in emissions regulation will drive irrevocable climate catastrophe down the line. And there’s ample reason for concern right now, as Kate emphasizes, given the other “challenges to the administrative state the majority opinion appears to invite.” But don’t despair just yet. We could all use a sliver of hope right now, and Apocalypse Soon doesn’t publish silver lining pieces all that often, so I’d encourage you to read this one. Maybe pair Kate’s piece with Liza Featherstone’s recent column on the role of joy in the environmental movement. Emphasizing the good feelings that environmentalism can engender doesn’t mean abandoning rigorous analysis or failing to hold bad actors accountable, she notes. But it could be a good strategy for political persuasion, as well as keeping despair and frustration at bay. —Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor |
|
|
|
|
{{#if }} We are a small, independent magazine, and our subscribers ensure that our journalists have the resources they need to correct misinformation and expose the right’s assaults on our democracy. Will you support their reporting by donating today? |
—Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor | {{/if}} |
|
|
|
The EPA seems to be underestimating the levels of PFAS chemicals in the nation’s water. PFAS are manmade chemicals widely used in consumer and industrial products that researchers have linked to a variety of health problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elsewhere in the Ecosystem |
One useful thing about this New York Times write-up of current nuclear discourse is that it doesn’t just portray it as a battle between the “nuclear can save us from climate change!” and “nuclear is dangerous!” crowds. Many of the problems with expanding nuclear power, as Mike Pearl previously explained at TNR, are actually practical and logistical in nature. The plants take forever to complete, for example, and they’re mostly not economical. These three paragraphs from Times reporter Ivan Penn beautifully distill the issue: |
|
Industry leaders recognize that the age of new large-scale nuclear plants in the United States has passed, chiefly because of runaway costs. Two new units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro, Ga., expected to come online in 2023, are costing about twice the original estimate of $14 billion. A nuclear project in South Carolina drove the utility developing it into bankruptcy. But many in the industry say smaller reactors that can be expanded over time offer promise of avoiding long delays and high cost. These reactors, they say, can be built in factories and delivered to approved sites. And the reactors’ high-temperature steam could also yield significant amounts of hydrogen, a carbon-free alternative fuel to natural gas. The project locations can plan for as many as a dozen units but start with just one. But a plant with 12 units would produce half the electricity or even a little less than many other large nuclear facilities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Subscribers Are Reading |
While everyone was focused on the Supreme Court, there was a string of broken promises and record-breaking heat waves. |
|
|
Do voters have the right to restrict harmful industrial practices within their state? The Supreme Court’s ruling on Prop 12 will decide. |
by Jan Dutkiewicz and Jeff Sebo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update your personal preferences for newsletter@newslettercollector.com by clicking here. Copyright © 2022 The New Republic, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: The New Republic 1 Union Sq W Fl 6 New York, NY 10003-3303 USA Do you want to stop receiving all emails from TNR? Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them. |
|
|
|
|
|