Rescinding the 2009 rule will leave Americans to pay a high price — up to nearly $4 trillion by 2055, and a health risk to tens of millions, writes Julia Musto
They’re trying to change (“correct”) the law so that the Environmental Protection Agency will have no authority in regards to climate-related regulation at all, meaning that this would also be true for future administrations. In order to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (etc), Congress would have to pass a law specifically granting that authority and mission to the EPA. This would then need to be signed by the president or have the president’s veto overruled.
It’s worse than it sounds.
They’re trying to change (“correct”) the law so that the Environmental Protection Agency will have no authority in regards to climate-related regulation at all, meaning that this would also be true for future administrations. In order to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (etc), Congress would have to pass a law specifically granting that authority and mission to the EPA. This would then need to be signed by the president or have the president’s veto overruled.