The People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast

Paying Realistic Rates For Fuel

Listen on

Episode notes

We need to get used to change, and there appears to be 19 US states not wanting to change, and reduce their pollution. Is this really a republican issue, or is it a wider than that?

Maybe these 19 states need guiding through this change in a more supportive way with clearer pathways, and maybe, just maybe, these can help reduce resistance to change?

These points of discussion were instigated by another question sent in by Paco in Wimbledon, England, here it is:

“I’m now hearing that the Supreme Court in the US has voted to limit President Biden's power to cut emissions. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lost some of its power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court represents a major setback. Biden called it a "devastating decision" but said it would not undermine his effort to tackle the climate crisis. The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies. They argued that the agency did not have the authority to limit emissions across whole states. These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be forced to move away from using coal, at a severe economic cost. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with the conservative states and fossil-fuel companies, agreeing that the EPA did not have the authority to impose such sweeping measures. Environmental groups will be deeply concerned by the outcome as historically the 19 states that brought the case have made little progress on reducing their emissions - which is necessary to limit climate change. It means President Biden is now relying on a change of policy from these states or a change from Congress - otherwise the US is unlikely to achieve its climate targets. This is a significant loss for the president who entered office on a pledge to ramp up US efforts on the environment and climate. On his first day in office he re-entered the country into the Paris Agreement, the first legally-binding universal agreement on climate change targets. And he committed the country to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 52% by 2030 against 2005 levels. Please cover this and also the fact that maybe we should all start to get used to paying more for fuels. Here in the UK the cost of heating our homes, maybe thats something we should get used to and not expect it to go down? Maybe instead of getting home based fuel costs down isn’t the answer, maybe we should be insulating our homes better so we need less fuel and heating. Two seemingly different issues but related I feel”.

It’s a long question but co-hosts Stuart and William break it down into bite sized palatable chunks. Among other things examining if the EPA in the US is not having the power they probably should have, and whether it is in fact a toothless tiger.

In today's episode Stuart and William again talk about Environmental Debate Live & Unscripted happening on the 27th May at the Bothy Vineyard, in Oxfordshire. Here’s a link to book tickets for this event: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/environmental-debate-live-unscripted-tickets-514832145807

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to [email protected], or record a message in your own voice by going to https://anchor.fm/thepeoplescountryside/message

Find out more about our project through the following link https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside

--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message