straight up misinformation from Politico Power Switch today: "The Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate planet-warming pollution."
the definition of air pollution in the 1970 Clean Air Act deliberately mentions weather and climate, in part because carbon dioxide was known to be dangerous.
It got overshadowed by the pipeline news, but NYS’s deal to allow Greenidge Generation to keep operating an upstate gas plant *for the sole purpose of mining bitcoin* might be almost as big of a reversal gothamist.com/news/upstate...
Maybe I don't know the meaning of at-grade crossing but how could the trolleys be removed from the street?
I love wistfully staring at the gutted Budd factory on my SEPTA regional rail ride with too few cars because SEPTA has been ordered to inspect all of its 50-year old fleet that keeps catching on fire.
Fiona Apple
Kelly Drive in Fairmount Park has been engineered to remove most pedestrian crossings and amenities, to speed up traffic.
A thread with 8 examples of things that have been lost, with historical images. South to north.
1. A staircase from the river trail to the Girard Ave Bridge, and Brewerytown:
A bit of happy news! After years of work from many people, and in response to a petition from my organization Delaware Riverkeeper Network, EPA finalized revised water quality standards for the tidal Delaware to support all life stages of aquatic life, including Atlantic Sturgeon! 🐟
This whole thread!
45/ ⚖️🌱The Court. "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is therefore inherent to other human rights. Under international law, the RtHE is essential to the enjoyment of other human rights."
🔥 ⚖️ 🌐HAPPENING NOW: Historic #ClimateJustice Ruling being delivered by the 🇺🇳 🧑⚖️ International Court of Justice.
🚨This ruling could signal a new dawn for climate law & accountability
📝 🧵 Live thread below with context, summary & analysis 👇
#ClimateJusticeAO #AOLetsGo
Resources for covering today's 6-3 SCOTUS decision on Tennessee's ban on medical care for transgender youth:
www.transjournalists.org/2025-skrmett...
"NEPA requires consideration of environmental impacts only if such consideration would result in information on which the agency could act." This conclusion by the concurrence flows from the Supreme Court's 2004 opinion DOT v. Public Citizen.
Concurring opinion by Sotomayor relies on agency's organic statute, which forbids consideration of the cargo carried on the railway. In other words, STB could not deny railway based on fact that it would be used primarily for crude oil.
Whether something is a "separate project" is again a factual question within the agency's discretion, says the majority.
According to the majority, the causal chain is broken by the fact that an effect is caused by a "separate project"--later in time, in a different location, proposed by a different entity, under the regulatory jurisdiction of another agency, etc.
On "reasonable foreseeability": "The effects from a separate project may be factually foreseeable, but that does not mean that those effects are relevant to the agency’s decisionmaking process or that it is reasonable to hold the agency responsible for those effects."
NEPA makes clear that agencies are required to weigh environmental consequences in their decisionmaking. That is the purpose of the statute.
. . . or perhaps that the agency erred because the governing statute did not allow the agency to weigh environmental consequences at all." Presumably this is also true of agency approvals? Environmental consequences are often arbitrarily discounted.
Another interesting quote: "[A] denied applicant may argue, among other things, that the agency acted unreasonably in denying approval by weighing environmental consequences too heavily in light of the agency’s governing statute and other relevant factors . . .
. . .(i) how far to go in considering indirect environmental effects from the project at hand and (ii) whether to analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time or place from the project at hand."
Key quote on expanded agency deference: "So long as the EIS addresses environmental effects from the project at issue, courts should defer to agencies’ decisions about where to draw the line—including . . .
Request your free street tree today! Get in line for the fall, why wait til 2026? Fill the form out. If you have a pavement, a contractor will cut a space for the tree. It's a great program!
pg-cloud.com/phs/?openfor...
This is your occasional reminder that typing “-ai” before your search term is pretty effective at preventing the often-inaccurate Ai summaries
(Yes, I know there are other ways: this is the quickest and easiest to remember)
Gigantic vegan “cowgirl cookie” sold at (not made at) Mugshots Cafe in Philadelphia
Disgraceful.
I’ve been thinking about this pivot a lot. What should be the response to those who say climate disruption doesn’t need to be avoided?
The White House is clearly scared of the power states have to build the clean energy economy and is resorting to blatantly unconstitutional tactics. The Trump administration is hoping that pro-climate state governments back down in fear. How should states respond? Simple. Ramp up instead. 🧵
If you accept that non-citizens have no right to due process, you are accepting that citizens have no right to due process. All the government has to do is claim that you are not a citizen; without due process you have no chance to prove the contrary.
