| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Supremes: EPA Can Regulate CO2 |
| 2007-04-02 |
| I got this from a email newsletter from Pollution Engineering magazine. The link goes to the text of the US Supreme Court decision that just came out today. The Supreme Court today decided that the EPA has the authority under the Clear Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, particularly CO2, but it waits to be seen whether the agency also has the duty to do so. In a 5-4 decision, the court rejected the position of the Bush Administration, which argued that greenhouse gas emissions did not constitute pollutants as defined in the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court majority decided U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a "meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations" and hence, to global warming. Having fully imbibed Al Gorilioni's Kool-Aid. "A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related," Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority decision. And other respected scientists disagree. But debate has officially been ended by moonbats. The court also ordered the EPA to reevaluate its contention that it has the discretion not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, noting that arguments should be tied to the Clean Air Act. During the trial, the administration used foreign policy and economic considerations to justify its position. Absenting federal controls, a number of states had begun to pass their own CO2 emission controls. Massachusetts and 11 other states, along with 13 environmental groups, sued the EPA to execute its authority under the Clean Air Act, which the agency argued it did not have. The court decided that states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision and that the Clean Air Act gives the agency the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Justices Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg formed the majority opinion. Court conservatives Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. It's a full court press, folks. I had a hard time figuring out where to place this article, so I put it in Non-WoT. But 5th column subheading seemed so appropriate. The case is titled Massachusetts v. EPA. |
| Posted by:Alaska Paul |
| #15 In honor of SCOTUS, I release my maximum allotment of methane in their general direction. To support Massachusetts' and others wise decision, Texas should stop shipping petroleum and natural gas to them. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-04-02 21:12 |
| #14 and no, that wasn't a hit request, just sarcasm. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-02 21:01 |
| #13 perhaps the CO2 output of 4 SCOTUS judges should be curtailed? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-02 21:00 |
| #12 Silentbrick has the solution. And the left has already mapped out how to eliminate the EPA, as well as Public Broadcasting: slow bleed it... |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-04-02 20:35 |
| #11 Silentbrick has the solution. |
| Posted by: Thrating Hatfield2271 2007-04-02 20:22 |
| #10 How do you regulate the major by-product of an internal combustion engine? Never mind that, how do you regulate the major by-product of our continued life?! ISTR reading in the late '80s that Germany had passed a "radioactive waste" law with levels set so low the average human body qualified. How long until we get that crazy with our fear of CO2? Let's not even talk about methane... |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2007-04-02 20:22 |
| #9 In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit. The court should simply recognize that dealing with the complaints spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said. He said his position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem." The court should simply recognize that dealing with the complaints spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Here is another prime example of a court making legislative and executive descisions. If it was up to the liberal judges there would only be one branch of government, the Judicial. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-04-02 19:16 |
| #8 "Who is pushing for CO2 to be regulated?" Watermelon environmentalists-- green on the outside, red on the inside. "What are they trying to accomplish?" Two things. One, they're trying to get Americans to accept higher levels of government interference-- MUCH higher levels-- in their lives, so that still-greater intrusions can be perpetrated in the future. And they believe this contrived climate-change "emergency" is the perfect vehicle for achieving that. And second, they're trying-- as usual, due to their "zero-sum" concept of wealth-- to punish America for being prosperous by obligating it to pay taxes to "poor" nations in the form of carbon credits. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-02 19:07 |
| #7 So, elminate the EPA as it is an Executive agency, and once gone, it's no longer a problem. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-04-02 18:38 |
| #6 How do you regulate the major by-product of an internal combustion engine? Sorry, your Suburban has to go because it's making too much CO2. Go get a Fiat Punto to replace it and come back to try again. More likely they will go for quotas on sales, or push mass transportation. Oh my, did I just stumble upon some environmentalist's ulterior motive here? Who is pushing for CO2 to be regulated? What are they trying to accomplish? |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-04-02 17:01 |
| #5 Justice Scalia sums it up in the last paragraph of his dissenting opinion: The CourtÂ’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not to distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-04-02 16:40 |
| #4 Justices Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg formed the majority opinion. "Hey! Whadabout me? I care deeply about Global Climate Change, too!" -- Anthony Kennedy |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-04-02 16:27 |
| #3 5th Column would be correct in this case, AP. Good job. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-02 16:19 |
| #2 Well, you remember the item in the bill of rights about living in a clean* environment? *as defined by liberals |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-04-02 15:57 |
| #1 "A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related," Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority decision. Last I checked Justice Stevens's job was interpreting constitutionality, not scientific plausibility. Or did I miss something in Civics class? |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-04-02 15:54 |