Biden's Plan for Electric Cars Was Just Made Illegal

Historically, it came with a v8 option, but the newest model doesnt even offer the same reason why we see more turbo, v6s and vehicles that traditionally came with v8s and that impacts car reliability. The reason for all this is also related to why evs are getting promoted. More heres the thing, the organization that has a huge impact on this is the environmental protection agency or epa for short, but recently the supreme court limited the epas authority in power. A key reason of this is because of the oil shortage. When we hear the word epa, many people think about car emissions control, but the epa regulates more than that because of the oil shortage. The government wants power plants to be more flexible in generating energy. Traditional cars can only run on gasoline, but power plants can use either. Sources like coal and coal compared to oil causes more pollution. So now, if the epa cant regulate air quality and power plants anymore, then isnt it just a matter of time before the vehicle emissions laws get mixed too. Does this mean v8s will come back? Will gasoline prices fall and after all, this are we done trying to fix? The climate today were looking at all this Music june 30th. 2022 is now historical day. That was just a few weeks ago, the united nations panel report issued a warning about the effects of climate change soon to get much much worse, the u.n even went on to say these effects will make the world sicker poorer, hungrier and more dangerous in the next Years to come, ironically, that very same day, nine u.

s supreme court justices are at both sides of west virginia versus epa and then limited the epas authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. In a nutshell, the epa can no longer regulate pollution. Now they cant tell power companies to stop burning coal or force them to use cleaner sources of energy. To understand the scope of this impact just rewind a few days prior to the room thats when the epa put a guy in jail, heres a scoop. A 35 year old man in north carolina matthew, sidney, george was sentenced to one year in one day, his crime conspiracy of violating the clean air act. Basically, he had sold 14 000 illegal emissions defeat devices for cars and trucks. Defeat devices are illegal systems that defeat required vehicle emissions control systems. The epa has ordered him several times previously to stop his activity, yet he continued on now in a distant jail time, hes required to pay 1.3 million to the epa and another 1.2 million to the irs, since the evaded taxes on the sale of the illegal devices. Actually, department of justice believes he and his three partners had in reality sold far more than just 14 000 devices anyway, with the recent west virginia versus epa ruling. I wouldnt be surprised if the man appeals his case directly to the supreme court, but lets return to the president with the most recent supreme court ruling. The epa has far less power and reach.

Does this mean that your car wont be required to pass vehicle emissions tests someday? Well, the path of the supreme court is on. Who knows, it might not be inconceivable at this rate. After all, the epa cant regulate air quality and power plants, and really its potentially around the corner for vehicle emission laws to be cancelled too vehicle emissions standards are currently set through the mandates enacted by congress. With the clean air act amendments the regulators are managed by the epa and nhtsa and they delegate to each u.s state to enforce the standards. California is an exception, but thats another story for another day, but lets rewind 50 years ago to 1970. thats. When president richard nixon established the epa, basically its an agency for u.s federal government, its mission is to protect environment and public health, and it does this by setting standards and loss. It regulates things like distribution, processing, manufacturing and the use of chemicals and other pollutants. Its also responsible for determining safe tolerance, levels for chemicals and other pollutants that can be found in water, food and animal feed. If the agency finds something wrong, itll enforce its finding through sanctions, fines and other procedures. Did you know that under the trump administration, the epas, regulations of carbon emissions from cars, power plants and other major contributors to climate change were significantly rolled back? These regulations had originally been instituted by president barack obama, and, even today, the epas, size and influence continues to diminish.

In fact, criminal prosecutions for those who dont follow. Epa regulations are actually at a 30 year. Low epa has its fair share of critics, to say the least. Some argue that the epa regulations are too expensive and offer too little benefit. If youre wondering why theres so much criticism well, those who oppose the epa believe that associated costs for companies to comply with environmental laws and standards are too high. This erodes corporate profits, which results in massive layoffs, and critics also say that the funds used for these costs could be used in other ways to help companies to be more productive and compete on the global market. Other critics say that the epa doesnt act fast enough on environmental. It matters, for example, back in 2020 congress and environmentalists criticized the epa for moving slowly and limiting the use of certain toxic chemicals that cause infertility, cancer and other diseases. These specific toxins are currently contaminating the nations drinking water theyve been found in life, saving equipment and household items. Dpa responded with action plans to address how communities monitor and address these toxins contamination. Yet critics argue that the epas plan lacks any real action and is therefore actually detrimental to the environment and u.s citizens. This past june was a milestone thats when the u.s supreme court delivered their ruling on a case between west virginia versus the epa. In a six to three majority, led by chief justice, john roberts, the court denied the epa the authority to create emissions caps or limit.

This means that the epas authority is now limited under a provision of the clean area to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. And so, if the epa ever wants to shift power, production away from dirtier sources of electrical generation like coal and gas or renewable or zero pollution power generation like solar, wind or hydropower, they need clear authorization from congress itself. Many legal experts expect the supreme courts ruling. Could be extended to other federal agencies? If so, then it would also make it impossible for other agencies to use any regulatory authority to act without specific permission from congress, but the supreme courts ruling wasnt completely unexpected. It did send additional shockwaves across the nation. After the already divided conservative supreme courts, majority rulings overturned the roe versus wade, federal abortions right case and new yorks concealed carry gun law. Now the supreme court didnt completely eliminate the u.s executive branchs ability to take climate action. President biden could still do a wide range of things to cut down greenhouse gas emissions, but the courts decision has left many experts stating that the supreme court clearly intended to limit the ability of the federal government to regulate corporations. Youre probably wondering exactly why the supreme court ruled against the epa well, the court stated that congress needs to provide specific direction to the epa rather than granting it a broad scope of power in the courts opinion only with the specific direction from congress can the epa Effectively regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but there were three justices did not agree: justices elena kagan, stephen brayer and sonia sotomayer.

Together, they argue. The clean air act was written with very broad language in anticipation of dealing with new problems like climate change, and they believe that the majoritys decision goes almost against a century of regulatory law. Justice elena kagan even went as far as saying theyre the stakes and the case were extremely high. She said the court was appointing itself instead of congress or the expert agency as a decision maker on climate policy, and that there are few things more frightening than that. Interestingly, to note 5 out of 10 justices, who were part of the 6 3 majority in the ruin were appointed by presidents who had lost the popular vote. At some point, justices john roberts and samuel alito were appointed by george w bush and justices brett kavanaugh neil gorsuch and amy coney barrett were appointed by donald trump. So what does it all mean for climate change? Well, president, joe bidens plan is to cut the nations greenhouse gas emissions by half by the end of the decade and he wants to have a completely emissions free power sector by 2035.. Right now, power plants account for around 30 percent of carbon dioxide output. So the recent supreme court ruling will impact how much biden will accomplish. Since now, the epas authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions is non existent heres. What climate experts have to say, climate change impacts, everyones, health and well being, and unfortunately, it disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable.

Other experts say that this ruling is a bad decision, thats completely inconsistent with the law prior decisions from the supreme court and even conservative justices own judicial philosophies. Other experts say that this restriction on the epa wasnt, based on how much u.s public health would benefit from the rule, but rather on the supreme courts. View of whether the clean air act allows the epa to make a rule like the 2015 clean power plant. This was a similar plan where state caps and limits were established for carbon emissions from power plants in 2015. The clean power plan did have some more similarities to the 2022 epa trial than you might realize. The plan was finalized in 2015, but it never officially took effect in this land. Then president barack obama set out to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 32 from 2005 levels by 2030. Back in 2015, obama said that the clean power plan was the single most important step america had ever taken in the fight against global climate change. It was actually equivalent to removing just about 166 million cars on the road, but the recent ruling against the epa has in effect blocked the 2015 clean power plan. Completely expectations are that the recent ruling will have the impact on the climate, but none of them are good news. First of all, by limiting the epa energy production decarbonization may create large economic gains for polluting sources, especially those who invested in coal powered plants.

The supreme courts decision is also, unfortunately, expected to slow down the countrys transition to clean power. Basically, itll leave our air dirtier for at least the next five or ten years, and maybe even longer so, unless congress passes a new law to undo this decision, the air will continue to get dirtier, which will impact public health. Some experts say that this will even cause many americans to die earlier. Well, how will this impact the car industry? This ruling will actually have particularly dire implications for ev use in parts of the u.s that rely primarily on fossil fuel burning power plants. True, the epa still has the power to regulate critical pollutants like ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, but it has lost a lot of its power to not only reduce carbon emissions from power plants but to clean up the u.s power grid. As a whole, the clean power plan has proposed a cap and trade market that would motivate power plants to move away from coal and natural gas and instead move towards renewables like wind and solar. But then the supreme court ruled that the schematics of this plan fell outside the regulatory rule of the epa, and that means the power plants that primarily rely on coal and natural gas. Now we have no more financial pressure to make them switch to renewables as long as they meet minimum emissions requirements. The ruling is dividing the nation but whats the epas response to this.

Well. Actually, the epa was hoping to unveil a new policy next year to tackle carbon emissions from power plants, but the recent ruling means that the policy will now be narrower than epa planned epa head michael reagan went on to say that epa plans to use new limits On traditional pollutants like coal, ash and ozone, to encourage the retirement of the countrys remaining coal fired plants, the supreme courts decision absolutely constrains what the epa can do and its ability to limit the flexibility of the power sector.