September 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than they already have.

-Rene Descartes

Supreme Court to visit EPA Rules on CO2

The United States Supreme Court today agreed to hear a case involving the federal regulation of greenhouse gas pollutants.

In 1999, various environmental groups filed an administrative petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases. The EPA denied that petition in August 2003, saying that it had no statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. At that time, EPA also said it would not regulate greenhouse gas emissions even if it had the authority to do so under the Clean Air Act.

In October 2003, [Massachusetts] and 29 other parties challenged that ruling in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit [and lost].

This March, Massachusetts and 28 other parties filed a petition for certiorari requesting Supreme Court review. Today, the Supreme Court agreed to review the federal appeals court case.

(story here)

As the Tacoma Tribune notes, the decision could determine how the nation addresses global warming.

I expect many on the right to stick with arguments that the Earth is not warming (false) or that it is only warming because of non-human activities (false) like the fact that the sun is shining brighter (true) and that this ruling could make it illegal to exhale (false and only mildy humorous even the first time, after which the comment has no humor value unless followed by a blast of secondhand cigarette smoke), but that doesn't help the debate. The question is, Has Congress already mandated that the EPA regulate the emissions of CO2? If so, then the EPA seems to be in the wrong in deciding not to do so.

And that does appear to be the case, says the National Resources Defense Council. As reported here, they note the wording of the Clean Air Act:

As evidence, the council cites Section 103, subsection (g) of the act, which states, in part, that federal officials should develop nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing "multiple air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, PM-10 (particulate matter), carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, from stationary sources, including fossil fuel power plants."

But the EPA says that the word "nonregulatory" in the above passage is the key to the whole issue. If Congress has not given them the power to regulate these emissions, it doesn't matter how detrimental anybody believes them to be. That seems pretty clear to me, but the split decisions in the lower courts make me wonder how exactly this will play out, both when this case is heard in October and over the next several years. I'll be holding my breath. [rimshot]

The other states involved in the case are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Posted by Wulf on June 29, 2006 at 11:59 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/328

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supreme Court to visit EPA Rules on CO2:

» Co2 from Co2
CO2 systems are the preferred choice as an extinguishant for a Western States Fire Protection installs CO2 syst... [Read More]

Tracked on July 7, 2006 10:45 AM

Comments

"I expect many on the right to stick with arguments that the Earth is not warming (false) or that it is only warming because of non-human activities (false)"

Please site your sources that show it's been conclusively proven that anthropogenic global warming is occuring, above and beyond, of course, that our collective body heat is adding to the ambient global temperature.

I'm glad to see the government acting quickly on this, because this issue is so important we need to immediately pass legislation - even before we have all of our facts straight. It's just like Al Gore says:

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we
are going to solve this crisis."

Posted by: Rammage at July 1, 2006 9:19 AM

We release greenhouse gases. Even during periods of global cooling, we will be releasing greenhouse gases. They get that name because, you know, they heat the planet.

This is simply not arguable. No climatologist would try. The question is, what percentage of the warming in the last century was due to humans? 90% Hey, that's a legitimate question, and I suspect the number is really low.

But as I said, this article is about the legal arguments - is the EPA supposed to be regulating CO2? They say no. If SCOTUS says yes, then this could get rough.

Posted by: Wulf at July 1, 2006 9:44 AM

Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than they already have.

-Rene Descartes

Supreme Court to visit EPA Rules on CO2

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment