This is a pretty interesting article on the Right’s recent strategy to undercut environmental protection, by claims that the original congressional mandate was focused on the immediate health risks and not long term concerns for the climate.
Recent papers highlighting original studies are helping the current generation of lawyers locate the less immediate/imminent/was-all-over-the-news reasons behind the adoption of the EPA. There was quite a bit of focus on climate damage, but what sold all the public arguments was smog and one of the Great lakes bursting into flames.
All the more reason that originalism is dumb, but I guess it’s the way the court wants to be right now and you’ve got to work with what you’ve got.
It’s easy to forget how much good the EPA has done.
This is a pretty interesting article on the Right’s recent strategy to undercut environmental protection, by claims that the original congressional mandate was focused on the immediate health risks and not long term concerns for the climate.
Recent papers highlighting original studies are helping the current generation of lawyers locate the less immediate/imminent/was-all-over-the-news reasons behind the adoption of the EPA. There was quite a bit of focus on climate damage, but what sold all the public arguments was smog and one of the Great lakes bursting into flames.
All the more reason that originalism is dumb, but I guess it’s the way the court wants to be right now and you’ve got to work with what you’ve got.
It’s easy to forget how much good the EPA has done.