Supreme court rebukes administration on green house gas emissions

blueapplepaste · Apr 2, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17911853/

Steezie · Apr 2, 2007

Finally maybe we'll see some positive change towards evironmental policy

pgp_protector · Apr 2, 2007

???
I thought that the Judicial Branch decided about the meaning of laws & there application in regard to the Constitution.

AirPo · Apr 2, 2007

pgp_protector said:
???
I thought that the Judicial Branch decided about the meaning of laws & there application in regard to the Constitution.

Does this help?

The court had three questions before it.

Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions.

crazyfingers · Apr 2, 2007

pgp_protector said:
???
I thought that the Judicial Branch decided about the meaning of laws & there application in regard to the Constitution.

The court also rules on whether laws are being implemented as they were intended to be implemented.

My understanding is that in this case the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate CO2. The EPA under Bush appointees doesn't want to do that.

It looks like the Supreme Court is simply telling the EPA that it has to follow the law as Congress passed it.

pgp_protector · Apr 2, 2007

AirPo said:
Does this help?

Yep

burrow_owl · Apr 2, 2007

To unpack a little more, Congress passes laws in very broad language and then leaves it to an agency to enforce it. The language is intentionally broad to allow the agency to react to new situations that weren't contemplated by the drafters.

In interpreting the law to apply to new situations or policies, the courts give the agency a fair amount of deference - the interpretation will be upheld so long as it's reasonable.

So the gist of the OP is that the court found the Bush EPA's reading unreasonable.

Inconel · Apr 2, 2007

I'm curious how the Supreme Court expects the EPA to regulate CO2. A higher fraction of CO2 in the exhaust of any combusted fuel is a good thing. It means less CO and NOx and other real toxic pollutants are being produced.

mwb · Apr 2, 2007

Steezie said:
Finally maybe we'll see some positive change towards evironmental policy

You're forgetting about Bush's intention of fueling vehicles with ethenol.

blueapplepaste · Apr 2, 2007

crazyfingers said:
The court also rules on whether laws are being implemented as they were intended to be implemented.

My understanding is that in this case the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate CO2. The EPA under Bush appointees doesn't want to do that.

It looks like the Supreme Court is simply telling the EPA that it has to follow the law as Congress passed it.

Just to add a little bit... (and I may be completely wrong).

My understanding of this ruling is that the Bush administration was saying that it didn't have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions; all the Supreme Court said is that it does indeed have that authority but they didn't say that the EPA has to regulate CO2 emissions.

crazyfingers · Apr 3, 2007

blueapplepaste said:
Just to add a little bit... (and I may be completely wrong).

My understanding of this ruling is that the Bush administration was saying that it didn't have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions; all the Supreme Court said is that it does indeed have that authority but they didn't say that the EPA has to regulate CO2 emissions.

I think that they said that the EPSs charter is to protect the environment and that if they decline to regulate greenhouse gases then they need a way better justification than they have given so far. Basically, if the don't want to regulate greenhouse gases, they had better come up with a scientifically valid reason not to.

Fantine · Apr 3, 2007

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the impact of any specific reductions by the United States alone, noting even if carbon dioxide emissions on new cars were regulated in the United States, broader global sources of pollution would remain.
"It assumes there isn't going to be a greater contribution of greenhouse gases from economic development in China and other places that's going to displace whatever marginal benefit you get here," Roberts said.
Milkey was hard pressed to estimate precisely how much reduction in greenhouse gases would occur if the EPA stepped in to reduce output from new cars.
Currently about 6 percent of the world's output of carbon dioxide comes from U.S. vehicles. Scalia wondered what effect a reduction to 4 percent would represent.
Scalia also disagreed that carbon dioxide causes air pollution, since he said its destructive effects were as a "stratospheric pollutant" above the Earth's atmosphere.
"I think it has to endanger health by reason of polluting the air, and this does not endanger health by reason of polluting the air at all," said Scalia.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/29/scotus.carbon.dioxide/

As usual Scalia sides with the bad guys.

Probably because one of his children is a lobbyist for the energy companies....

Supreme court rebukes administration on green house gas emissions

the purpose of life is a life of purpose

Steezie

Guest

Noted strange person

with a Touch of Grey

Well-Known Member

Noted strange person

Senior Contributor

Cold-Hearted Realist

Senior Veteran

the purpose of life is a life of purpose

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Similar threads