Nature Article RatingUS Supreme Court hobbles the EPA's authority over climate emissions
Jul 01, 2022 View Original Article
- Bias Rating
6% Center
- Reliability
N/AN/A
- Policy Leaning
34% Medium Conservative
- Politician Portrayal
94% Negative
Extremely
Liberal
Very
Liberal
Moderately
Liberal
Somewhat Liberal
Center
Somewhat Conservative
Moderately
Conservative
Very
Conservative
Extremely
Conservative
-100%
Liberal
100%
Conservative
Continue For Free
Create your free account to see the in-depth bias analytics and more.
Continue
Continue
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy, and subscribe to email updates. Already a member: Log inBias Score Analysis
The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.
Sentiments
Overall Sentiment
N/A
- Liberal
- Conservative
| Sentence | Sentiment | Bias |
|---|---|---|
| "Although a federal spending bill that would allocate more than half a trillion dollars to climate programmes over the next decade remains mired in Congress, lawmakers last year enacted a bipartisan infrastructure package that included more than US$200 billion in clean energy and climate investments." | Positive | 14% Conservative |
| "The case the court ruled on, West Virginia v. the US Environmental Protection Agency, was the most consequential climate litigation in the United States in 15 years." | Negative | -2% Liberal |
| "The ruling prohibits the EPA from crafting broad regulations to drive the US power industry away from coal and towards cleaner energy sources such as wind and solar." | Negative | -4% Liberal |
| "Capping carbon dioxide emissions to force a national shift away from coal to cleaner energy sources may be a sensible climate solution, the justices wrote in the majority decision, but it is not plausible that the US Congress meant to grant such authority to the EPA when it wrote the Clean Air Act." | Negative | -8% Liberal |
| "Anticipating how the Biden administration would try to regulate the power industry, the coalition of Republican-led states and coal companies that filed the lawsuit sought a preemptive ban on broad regulations that would effectively overhaul the US power industry, arguing that the 1970 Clean Air Act limits the agency's regulatory power to the scale of individual power plants." | Negative | -12% Liberal |
| "The US Supreme Court has limited the regulatory tools that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, dealing a massive blow to US President Joe Biden's climate agenda." | Negative | -80% Liberal |
| "Biden has also sought to broaden his administration's strategy, making iovation a centrepiece of his climate agenda, and fuelled it in part with government investments and incentives." | Positive | 16% Conservative |
| "During former president Barack Obama's tenure, in 2015, the EPA issued a rule to curb emissions from US electricity generation." | Negative | -8% Liberal |
| "It was also the first major opportunity for the court's new conservative majority to make its mark on US environmental law (former president Donald Trump appointed three justices to the bench, tipping the balance)." | Negative | -10% Liberal |
| "Anticipating how the Biden administration would try to regulate the power industry, the coalition of Republican-led states and coal companies that filed the lawsuit sought a preemptive ban on broad regulations that would effectively overhaul the US power industry, arguing that the 1970 Clean Air Act limits the agency's regulatory power to the scale of individual power plants." | Negative | -8% Liberal |
| "The court's ruling could make it much harder for the Biden administration -- and its successors -- to curb US greenhouse gases as promised under the 2015 Paris climate agreement." | Negative | -12% Liberal |
| "The Biden administration has so far been following Obama's lead in crafting new climate regulations, targeting everything from power plants and automobiles to methane emissions from the oil and gas industry." | Negative | -16% Liberal |
| "The Biden administration has so far been following Obama's lead in crafting new climate regulations, targeting everything from power plants and automobiles to methane emissions from the oil and gas industry." | Negative | -16% Liberal |
| "The Biden administration's EPA had yet to issue its own rule regulating power plants, but the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit anyway, requesting an advance ruling on the matter." | Negative | -18% Liberal |
| "The last time Democrats tried to push major climate legislation through Congress was more than a decade ago, under Obama." | Negative | -20% Liberal |
| "The Supreme Court cited that history in its decision this week, pointing out that Congress had already considered and rejected the kind of sweeping climate regulations that the EPA sought to push forward in the power industry under Obama." | Negative | -20% Liberal |
| "That legislation stalled in the Senate in 2010, however, and the Obama administration tried to sidestep Congress by relying on actions by US agencies, such as the EPA, to limit greenhouse-gas emissions." | Negative | -36% Liberal |
| "The US Supreme Court has limited the regulatory tools that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, dealing a massive blow to US President Joe Biden's climate agenda." | Negative | -44% Liberal |
Bias Meter
Extremely
Liberal
Very
Liberal
Moderately
Liberal
Somewhat Liberal
Center
Somewhat Conservative
Moderately
Conservative
Very
Conservative
Extremely
Conservative
-100%
Liberal
100%
Conservative
Contributing sentiments towards policy:
57% : Although a federal spending bill that would allocate more than half a trillion dollars to climate programmes over the next decade remains mired in Congress, lawmakers last year enacted a bipartisan infrastructure package that included more than US$200 billion in clean energy and climate investments.49% :The case the court ruled on, West Virginia v. the US Environmental Protection Agency, was the most consequential climate litigation in the United States in 15 years.
48% : The ruling prohibits the EPA from crafting broad regulations to drive the US power industry away from coal and towards cleaner energy sources such as wind and solar.
46% : Capping carbon dioxide emissions to force a national shift away from coal to cleaner energy sources may be a "sensible" climate solution, the justices wrote in the majority decision, but it is "not plausible" that the US Congress meant to grant such authority to the EPA when it wrote the Clean Air Act.
44% : Anticipating how the Biden administration would try to regulate the power industry, the coalition of Republican-led states and coal companies that filed the lawsuit sought a preemptive ban on broad regulations that would effectively overhaul the US power industry, arguing that the 1970 Clean Air Act limits the agency's regulatory power to the scale of individual power plants.
10% : The US Supreme Court has limited the regulatory tools that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, dealing a massive blow to US President Joe Biden's climate agenda.
*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.