VIA| More than half the states have requested relief from an Environmental Protection Agency order requiring them to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent, and for good reason. It’s ridiculous:
The states have asked the Supreme Court to stay the requirement pending the outcome of a lawsuit against it, saying that it would do “irreparable harm” to them.
Obama administration attorneys have responded that the states have plenty of time to comply, according to The Hill. They argued that states aren’t required to submit compliance plans until 2018 and aren’t required to make any changes until 2022.
“The relief that applicants request would be extraordinary and unprecedented, and their applications should be denied,” argued Solicitor General David Verrilli in favor of the EPA rule and against the states.
The states countered that if the order eventually is determined to be illegal or impossible, as they hope, the steps taken prior in order to attempt compliance could cause significant damage.
Whether the rule will be stopped for legal review is up to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who may decide to bring the matter before the full Supreme Court.
The battle over an arbitrary reduction in carbon emissions is just the beginning of efforts by Democrats to force lifestyle changes and redistribution of wealth based on claims that changing the weather can be accomplished through government spending.
The recent climate agreement in Paris mandates a call to action for the U.S. to reduce carbon emissions, assuming this will result in a reduction of a global temperature that does not appear to be rising in the first place.
The financial results will be devastating, with even more tax money going toward wasteful programs to encourage and financially back failed solar and wind companies.
The impact on Americans will be a lessening of energy usage, lower standard of living and higher cost for electricity.