Justices Back Rule Limiting Coal Pollution by Coral Davenport - Article Example

The paper "Justices Back Rule Limiting Coal Pollution by Coral Davenport" is a great example of an article on environmental studies. The article “Justices Back Rule Limiting Coal Pollution” was written by Coral Davenport in late April with the intention of informing the public on how coal plants, as well as courts, contribute to the pollution of air and the environment (Davenport, 2014). According to the article, carbon dioxide which is the key contributor for greenhouse effect together with mercury is the key things that are addressed by E.P.A. Soot and smog which are products of coal combustion result to health complications such as asthma, lung diseases as well as premature deaths (Davenport, 2014). The supporting of the E.P.A to control the smog production from coal plants involves the inaction of Obama’s administration Clean Air Act. The implementation of the regulations was however challenged by the Republicans and coal industry who claimed that the regulations were nothing but “war on coal”. According to the article, Obama’s administration’s effort to enact Clean Air Act was challenged by not only Obama’s political interests in areas such as Ohio but also by the decision made by the Court of Appeal (Davenport, 2014). However, the decision made by the Supreme Court enabled Obama’s administration to enact its policies on pollution regulations. According to the article, a good example of such policies is the “good neighbor rule” that has managed to protect health as well as the environment of downwind states. Despite all these, the issuing of the regulations also received lots of criticisms. According to the article, downwind states required upwind states to cut their pollution according to their products because they are the key cause of pollution of downwind states. The coal industry and Republicans also claimed that Obama’s administration aimed at allocating too much power to the E.P.A resulting in economic burden on the polluting states (Davenport, 2014). According to the article, this is as a result of the coal plants being forced to install expensive scrubber technology so as to control the release of smog to the environment. According to the article, Republicans and the coal industry also claimed that the regulations may lead to the closure of some plants which will raise energy costs in addition to the loss of employment. Additionally, the article asserts that pollution in America is also as a result of some states being resilient to the set rules. 

Pollution was the key reason for the occurrence of respiratory diseases in the U.S. because of many reasons. For instance, it is evident that E.P.A was not justified to stop issuing regulation issues in Ohio because of Obama’s political interests. The health of the people of Ohio was very important than some individual’s interests. Participation of the Court of Appeal in barring E.P.A from issuing regulations against coal-plant pollution through producing mercury was also a portrayal of injustice to people (Davenport, 2014). The Court of Appeal knew very well of the negative implications of burning coal but still insisted on barring E.P.A from controlling pollution. Supreme Court’s support of Obama’s administration was, however, a portrayal of justice. The Supreme Court took into consideration the health of people and allowed E.P.A to come up with new rules that will reduce pollution in America.
In conclusion, Davenport’s article expounds on the contributions of burning coal to the environment. The courts as well politicians contribute significantly to the occurrence of pollution in the environment. To regulate pollution, coal-plants are supposed to cut pollution in accordance with their production. Implementation of E.P.A regulations also aids significantly in regulating pollution. However, their implementation may lead to the closure of some plants and as a result, lead to the rise of energy costs. Read More