To the editor: The U.S. Supreme Court's injunction suspending
This is not just my opinion, however, but one supported by 29 states, state agencies and other stakeholders that petitioned the court to protect their constituencies. Had the plan not been stayed while litigation is pending, states across the country would have wasted precious resources on a plan that is at its base illegal.
As your editorial rightly points out, the court recently ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency failed to consider costs with regard to Michigan vs. EPA and remanded the regulation back to the lower court. This action, however, came much too late to undo economic damage wrought on states, businesses and consumers.
The founders separated power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches with the explicit intent of preventing one from dominating another. In this case, the Obama administration circumvented Congress by establishing the power plan without its consent, forcing the Supreme Court to take unprecedented action. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did exactly that to protect the best interests of the states.
Mike Duncan, Washington
The writer is president and chief executive of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. He was chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2007-09.
To the editor: My political science professor said that the government rises to the expectations of the people. So it is. We just want to keep having fun, to keep consuming no matter the consequences. It's all about the money, and it brings out the worst in people.
But in case anyone is paying attention, humanity's carbon-dioxide emissions are causing a melting of Arctic ice, which in turn has produced large amplification oscillations and slower movement of the jet stream, locking in high pressure and drought in the West and extreme cold, rain and snow in the Midwest and East.
And it's not isolated to the United States. In 2010 Russia experienced the worst heat wave and drought ever recorded, which killed 55,000 people, while Pakistan flooded. It's difficult to comprehend our government putting business interests ahead of individual and climate health and our credibility.
Roger Newell, San Diego
To the editor: Obama is trying to enable the U.S. to meet the agreements on greenhouse gas emission reductions reached with 195 world leaders in Paris. The agreed upon reductions, while not enough, are a necessary first step in mitigating the global heating and destructive climate change caused by greenhouse gases released when fossil fuels are burned.
Now, the Supreme Court appears to be placing the interests of U.S. coal companies ahead of the well-being of planet Earth and all who live on it — and ahead of the reputation of the U.S. as a country that honors its international agreements.
Al Barrett, Santa Monica