Description
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA that when the U.S. Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate science was “in its infancy,” implying that government officials could never have intended for the legislation to cover the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2022, SCOTUS doubled down on that idea, ruling in West Virginia v EPA that since the Clean Air Act didn't explicitly talk about climate change, the EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Now, new historical evidence unearthed by a team of Harvard University researchers led by Naomi Oreskes calls the court's understanding of the history of climate science into question, which could have major implications for the government's ability to regulate climate-changing emissions.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
How did our democracy get replaced by a kleptocracy?
Discover the truth on Master Plan, a new podcast from The Lever. Hosted by David Sirota, former speechwriter for Bernie Sanders and Oscar-nominated co-writer of Don’t Look Up, Master Plan exposes the deliberate scheme to legalize corruption...
Published 11/13/24
From October-December 2024, Fuel to Fork is taking over the Feed podcast with a 7-episode series exposing the hidden role fossil fuels play in the food we eat. Today, Fuel to Fork co-hosts Anna Lappé and Matthew Kessler join us to talk through that history and why it's remained hidden for so...
Published 11/12/24