1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Justices push EPA to act on car emissions

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by jkash, Apr 3, 2007.

  1. jkash

    jkash Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    889
    18
    0
    Location:
    West Hills, CA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Justices push EPA to act on car emissions
    The court ruling scolds the Bush administration for refusing to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants.

    The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for a more aggressive attack by government on global warming, which could include the first national rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new cars, trucks and power plants.

    In a 5-4 decision, the high court rebuked the Bush administration and ruled that so-called greenhouse gases — like carbon dioxide — were air pollutants subject to federal regulation.

    President Bush and his aides, allied with automakers, argued that federal officials did not have the power to set mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

    The court's ruling knocked down a legal barrier that kept California and other states from requiring reduced carbon emissions by new vehicles starting in 2009.

    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the decision and said he was "very encouraged."

    Under the Clean Air Act, California won the right to adopt its own regulations limiting emissions by new vehicles, but only if the Environmental Protection Agency issued a waiver saying the state's rules complied with the law. No waiver has been issued.

    Schwarzenegger said he expected the EPA "to move quickly now in granting our request for a waiver, which will allow California and [the] other states that have adopted our standards to set tougher vehicle emissions levels."

    Auto industry lawyers have sued in federal court in Fresno, arguing that California's emissions rules conflicted with the Clean Air Act. The case was put on hold, awaiting the Supreme Court decision issued Monday.

    "We think this is the end of the automakers' case," said David Bookbinder, a Sierra Club lawyer.

    Read more.
     
    #1 jkash, Apr 3, 2007
  2. etyler88

    etyler88 etyler88

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    450
    2
    0
    Location:
    Dover, DE
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Roberts, in his dissent, said that even though global warming might be "the most pressing environmental issue of our time," how to deal with it should be resolved by Congress and the president, not the court.
    Here is a perfect example of how even the Supreme justices are political. The minority dissenting opionion says court can't decide what to do congress has to. And the majority opion says the same thing, that the EPA has to do something, it is not telling the EPA what to do. The EPA has to do something b/c congress told the EPAd under the Clean Air Act, the EPA was required to regulate the emission of "any air pollutant" that was likely "to endanger public health or welfare."

    minority opinion



    A former Bush administration lawyer at the EPA said she was disappointed by the ruling.

    "I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the court stepped into a policy issue that is better left to Congress," Ann R. Klee said. "We need a global political solution to the global warming problem."

    also Roberts said the states had no grounds to sue: Mass. sued over losing coastline.


    Majority opinion

    The court did not say that the EPA must set national emissions standards for motor vehicles. But it made clear the agency must make its case if it chooses not to act.

    "Under the clear terms of the [law], EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or it provides some reasonable explanation" why regulations are not needed, Stevens said.


    Man-made CO2 sources from fossil fuel combustion, 2005

    Transportation: 33%

    Industrial: 27%

    Residential: 21%

    Commercial: 18%

    Does not add to 100% due to rounding

    Sources: EPA, Pew Center on Global Climate Change


    Also Thank God for California.
     
    #2 etyler88, Apr 3, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)