http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070402/ts_nm/usa_warming_court_dc;_ylt=Aof6NDsogZmDHF.hsn6z_RADW7oF This case sets a massive precedent. Unbelievable that it went this way. I have a lot to say about this case, but I am too damn tired to discuss at the moment. See ya'll tomorrow.
Same reaction, wow that came out of nowhere. People were freaking out that the supreme court would rule the EPA doesn't have authority because of the limiting nature of the commerce clause that has been set in motion by recent cases. And that would have flipped environmental regulation in the other direction and questioned the validity of the clean air and water acts themselves. Either way, definitely a surprise to see them rule that an executive agency has the power to implement emissions standards when traditionally that has been a realm of legislative branches. Also one other thing this case did was that it indirectly upheld the idea of the states suing the federal government for failing to meet legal obligations under federal law. This could come into play when for example, states dispute federal funding and resource allocation questions in No Child Left Behind or other bills that place mandates on the government itself or the states.
I think my posts in the past have shown that I'm a liberal, but I must say I am very disappointed in this ruling. Supreme court should not be able to give an executive agencies powers like it's doing here. It's a horrible precendence. Also on the green house emission, while I believe that laws and constitutions are living documents and should change with the times with the the correct interpretation. This however, is a major swing of pendulumn in the WRONG direction.
No its a different issue. Congress delegated authority to the EPA to enforce and implement the clean air and water acts. The USSC just ruled that greenhouse gases fall under the auspicies of the Clean Air Act and thus can be regulated by the EPA. Furthermore, the Clean Air Act compells the EPA to act (in this case on greenhouse gases) if it is proven that greenhouse gases do indeed have a negative effect on the environment and climate, which is generally the case held by major scientists. I have plenty of qualms about delegating to agencies but your criticism is an issue with Congress's delegation of authority to the EPA. Not to mention, delegating legislative authority to agencies has become rather common today. Although, I agree with you, it's really nothing but a political shell game when agencies implement laws because they slip under the media radar and if anything goes wrong, the president and congress can deflect blame by blaming the agency for the law instead of themselves.
This case is interesting for a variety of reasons: First off, few legal experts thought that the states/organizations would be granted standing to bring the lawsuit at all, nevermind with such a strong statement: Then, the SC decided to reverse a lower court decision and rebuked the EPA for offering no rationale as to why the agency did not make a decision with respect to the implications of GHGs on human health, adding that the EPA must "ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.". Lastly, this is going to open a tidal wave of new lawsuits - the state of Massachusettes has another case waiting regarding power plants (this one dealt only with automobiles). Friends of mine in the oil and gas industry are now expecting the hammer to drop sooner rather than later on CO2 emissions. What bothers me about this case, is that it places the burden of science on the courts. By saying the EPA has the authority to regulate GHGs, the courts are making a de facto statement on the health effects of the pollutants in question. This should be the responsibility of the EPA. And this is where it gets really convoluded... When the EPA first said it was planning on regulating CO2 under the Clinton administration, nobody batted an eye. But Bush, who promised to regulate CO2 when campaigning in 2000, reversed his own promise and rejected the recommendations of his own EPA administrator. For the record, the Clean Air Act rather clearly umbrellas CO2: Now, normally the EPA is VERY conservative with respect to regulation. Huge studies are conducted prior to any new policy, simply because industry will always sue the snot out of the EPA as a first defense, making concrete evidence of public harm a priority for the agency. In 1990, when the CAA was revised, ~180 or so chemicals were listed in the new legislation as pollutants, forever ending the litigation with respect to those pollutants. However, the EPA is still tasked with regulating as per the above guidelines. They are tasked, but they are not beholden to act. When the EPA under the Bush admin stated it "cannot regulate CO2", that's when the states sued. However, for the court to rule that the EPA can, it makes a circular argument that the GHGs in question are pollutants. Summary: 1) EPA says it cannot regulate CO2 under the CAA. 2) States sue saying it can and should since GHGs cause climate change, engendering public welfare. 3) Court rules the EPA can regulate, implying CO2 is a pollutant. I don't like that precedent. The court is not a scientific body - Scalia in fact remarked, ""I'm not a scientist. That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth." And he's right: the court is almost stepping out of line here IMO. You cannot say the EPA has authority without maing a suttle conjecture as to the merit of a chemical's pollutant qualities. Yet - if the EPA is refusing, there needs to be some mechanism to force the agency to act... Meh - I'm still digesting this one. Very surprising. Links: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0829-02.htm http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6556413
I'm no lawyer, but from reading about it, I got the impression that the court came down on EPA for not looking at the question of whether the emissions were harmful or not. My guess is they didn't because they knew they would be harmful and thus would have to regulate.
I hope people are happy paying higher electricity bills to solve a problem that may or may not exist. Never has a stack of lies and exaggerations camouflaged as a documentary been more influential than Al Gore's work. Of course, he's been doing nothing but attempting to silence debate on the issue ever since. I just hope people think critically about this issue before irreparable damage is done to the energy industry...
I'm not a lawyer either, and various reports/articles on this have gone out of their way to state that the USSC has not ruled that CO2 is causing global warming. But saying that GHGs fit under the definition of "air pollutant" per the CAA seems to indicate the courts felt that EPA was beholden to regulate as per it's nominal (and lengthy) process.
When did you get a degree in environmental science? BTW, critical thinking is not your strong suit, leave it to the adults.
If the energy industry can't operate within the law, without having irreparable damage done to it, then the whole thing should be dismanteled, and placed under govt. control until the problems are fixed. If they following the law means they will be irreparably damaged, then they have more problems than a documentary. They need serious help.
I agree with this analysis and I also don't think this is the precedent that people think it is. The federal act that I am most familiar with is the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) that has a huge bearing on commerce considering I make a fair amount of my income dealing with addressing it in buildings. While Congress passed the act the Executive branch developed the guidelines that have to be followed. The States are free to develop their own guidelines as long as they don't conflict with the Federal so they can be more strict than the Federal guidelines, like California's, but never more lenient. I don't see the situation with the Clean Air Act under this ruling being much different than what has happened under ADA. I also agree with Rimrocker's point that this isn't so much asking the courts to determine science, except in regard to lawsuits from the States, but asking the EPA to do some science to justify their positions.
well im all for moving greener, but it cant be forced too much. I think people are panicing and scrambling to do something, but lets face it the damage is done (if in fact it was caused by man) and in the scheme of things, any little bit that america decreases china/india/etc will triple it. and how about the light bulb ban...http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/reaction_to_ban_the_bulb.html it sounds great on the surface but when you really dive into all the ramifications it could end up being worse
I have no doubts that the court in no way intended to dictate a scientific conclusion. But.... The CAA gives the EPA authority (through congress) to regulate air pollutants per my above post. Now, since the court ruled that the EPA has authority to control carbon emissions, they are making a statement (albeit limited) that GHGs are pollution per the CAA definition and open to EPA control, and state/citizen group lawsuits. Edit: This is a suttle tidbit, I know. But it's important. If the EPA is proclaiming some chemicals not regulatable, forcing the courts to make that decision - that worries me. All that being said, I like this decision obviously - the industry has been preparing this for a while, and the ramifications are miniscule compared to how beneficial it will be for air quality should the EPA ever get the balls to regulate as needed.
Are you honestly going with that line of reasoning? We shouldn't do anything because they will offset it? If anything, that is the biggest reason to be a LEADER in this movement rather than a follower. If the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world seriously cut her emissions, that would show to the world that it is possible and then we can begin to put pressure on them to buy the technology to clean up their act from us.
