SCOTUS Says EPA Can Regulate Carbon

ThanatosMinor writes "In a 5-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, saying that the EPA's reasons for not doing so in the past were 'arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.' The ruling does not require the EPA to regulate carbon. But concerns about global climate change and its ties to human activity did appear to be deciding factors in the case." The AP coverage stresses that the ruling upholds the right of states to sue the Federal government over issues of global warming.

Nine old guys (and gals)

[OakDragon (885217)]

What was it the abortion people used to say? What do nine old dudes in robes know about my body?

What do nine old farts (gender neutral term to keep up with the times) know about climate science? Apparently as much as Leonarda Dicaprio and John Travolta. Enough to be dangerous.

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[shark swooner (1077115)]

RTFA:

Note that the supreme court dodged a bullet by not basing their decision on the question of the validity of anthopogenic global warming. As the New York Times reported:

In sending the case back for further proceedings, Stevens said the high court did not decide which policy the EPA must follow. "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute," he wrote.

Re:

[OakDragon (885217)]

Sorry, I can't read the article if I expect to get my post read by people who encourge me to RTFA.

Re:

[Shadow Wrought (586631)]

Sorry, I can't read the article if I expect to get my post read by people who encourge me to RTFA.

Best descriptor of Slashdot's noise to signal ratio evar.

Re:

[theodicey (662941)]

Actually, it's pretty much only Scalia who thinks he's smart enough to evaluate climate change. He got smacked down in oral argument [slate.com]:

"Scalia observes that there is a difference between an "air pollutant" and a "stratospheric pollutant." Milkey interrupts: "Respectfully, Your Honor. It is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere."

Re:

[sumdumass (711423)]

LOL. It is my understanding the global warming crowd are only worried about the pollutants in the stratosphere which cause the warming. After all, this is the only changes they are willing to adjust for things like water vapor and such.

I wonder if he got it wrong or was pulling this from something else? The stratosphere, if this is the case, is different from the air or troposphere as we use it. If the idea of global warming and the regulation of Co2 does come before them, this might be an indication of how

Insightfull? - Mods, please RTFA.

[TapeCutter (624760)]

Come on mods, RTFA! SCOTUS is not so senile as to attempt to tell the EPA how to conduct science, they told them to do their fucking job and have given the states the legal standing to force them, (and one would assume all other federal agencies), to do so.

This decision emphatically supports the quaint little notion that "science informs politics". Regardless of what appears to be your own "dangerous" ignorance on the subject of climate science, arguing against the core message in this verdict is nothing

Re:Insightfull? - Mods, please RTFA.

[ukemike (956477)]

It surprises me how a website full of otherwise apparently intelligent people can display such ignorance.

The Bush administration has consistently governed favoring crony-ism, special interests, and religious wackos, instead of science.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/6 2339 [wired.com]

The Court told the EPA that they had to DO THEIR DAMN JOBS, regulate greenhouse gasses, or provide a reasonable explanation why they won't. You see for years in the face of overwhelming evidence they have simply failed to act in accordance with the law.

On the other big topic of debate here, whether this qualifies as "news for nerds," not all nerds are monomaniacally obsessed with computers. Some of us are interested in science, which is a study of how the real world works.

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[JeanPaulBob (585149)]

To my "IANAL" understanding, parents are certainly legally responsible to care and provide for their children, but children's responsibilities to their parents are somewhat...less than symmetrical.

Hmm. An amusing image just occurred to me, of parents suing their children for adversely affecting their financial well-being and causing stress and emotional turmoil...By the very fact of their existence.

It would be funnier if it were a bit further from being believable, though.

Where are the primary sources?

[Dan Ost (415913)]

That video claims that CO2 trends follow temperature trends by 800 years, indicating that rises in CO2 are caused by raised temperatures, not the other way around.

I've heard this before, but never from a primary source. Can anyone direct me to the studies that support/refute this conclusion?

Right now all I have to go on is 2 videos (Gore's the Swindle video). I don't particularly trust either.

Re:Where are the primary sources?

[polar red (215081)]

So ... ONE BILLION PEOPLE driving cars and flying planes don't have an effect on CO2 levels ? Ok, you come back with "it's only a few percent of total emissions, if you also count volcanoes, emissions of animals and plants" I'll tell you this : The emissions of volcanoes, plants and animals have been taken care of by a billion year of evolution to balance emission/absorption of CO2. Now we're here and we screw the balance. What happens if you spend yearly 1% more than you earn ? In the long term ? Do the maths over 50 years for an income of 10000.

No change

[HomelessInLaJolla (1026842)]

The Supreme Court is, as has been their policy for nearly 100 years [articlev.com], ignoring the greater question of jurisdiction while focusing on the lesser aspects.

Quote from the article [sciam.com]'s author:

I'm no legal scholar, but it sounds as if, by declaring that the EPA's case was weak, further defense of this matter (say in a future federal court case) would require either that the EPA come up with some compelling jurisdictional argument about why a substance in the atmosphere that could potentially harm humans isn't after all covered by the Clean Air Act

I think the greater question is whether or not the Clean Air Act, or even the act which created the EPA, was Constitutional to begin with. The most direct example of this distinction can be found in a historical piece published by the NYTimes [nytimes.com].

As Congress does not possess power itself to make onsetments relative to the persons or property of citizens of the United States, in a Federal Territory, other than such as the Constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally delegate any such powers to a Territorial Government, organized by it under the Constitution.

Parallel, As Congress does not possess power itself to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, other than such as the Constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally delegate any such power to a federal authority such as the EPA, organized by it under the Constitution.

In 1857 the SCOTUS did the right thing, politically, by affirming that the Federal Government does not have sweeping jurisdiction over anything which can be remotely rationalized as commerce

The legal condition of a slave in the State of Missouri is not affected by the temporary sojourn of such slave in any other Sate, but on his return his condition still depends on the laws of Missouri.

As the plaintiff was not a citizen of Missouri, he, therefore, could not sue in the Courts of the United States. The suit must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

If the transportation of a slave across state lines wasn't eligible for interstate commerce in 1857 then what has changed since then? A Constitutional Amendment was required, even a Civil War wasn't enough, for the slave trade to be considered "commerce". Where does the EPA derive its power from?

While it is a Good Thing that the slave population was officially outlawed (nevermind the gaping hole in the 13th Amendment which allows for a simple jaywalking ticket to make a person eligible for slavery), it is a Better Thing that our government be reminded, as often as possible, of the limitations on its power.

Re:

[Qzukk (229616)]

I think the greater question is whether or not the Clean Air Act, or even the act which created the EPA, was Constitutional to begin with. The most direct example of this distinction can be found in a historical piece published by the NYTimes.

You're absolutely right. We should abolish the Clean Air Act, then all the other environmental regulations and finally the EPA and then start arresting factory workers and operators for assault by poisoning.

Because just like the GPL is the only thing that gives people

Re:

[vandan (151516)]

and then start arresting factory workers and operators for assault by poisoning

Factory workers? Surely you mean factory owners? The workers don't have any say in factory processes. They should, mind you.

Re:

[aldousd666 (640240)]

I'd agree the owners are to blame, but damnit, people who work for someon in business should not get a say in it. They are paid by the company because there is stuff for them to do, not because it wants to give them a job. If you don't like your job in the factory, quit, but you DON'T get a say in it. You can complain that it's unsafe, you can get them to fix that, but you cannot say what should and shouldn't be done in general, that's why they PAY you, to do what you're TOLD. Start your own factory and

Relative risk

[PIPBoy3000 (619296)]

Be a little careful about "poison is the cost of progress". Nearly everyone thinks vaccines are a good thing, even though a very small percentage of people have a reaction. Certain technologies, such as sanitation, have significant environmental costs, even though as a whole they save millions of lives.

Re:

[SetupWeasel (54062)]

The question the grandparent poses is not "Should there be a Clean Air Act?" It is "Does Congress have the power to make a Clean Air Act?"

If you shoo questions about abuses of power under the rug when you agree with the outcome, you will be bit in the ass when you don't.

Re:No change

[debrain (29228)]

Because just like the GPL is the only thing that gives people the right to copy GPL software, the EPA and Clean Air Act and the like is the only thing that gives companies and people the right to poison each other with impunity.

The problem with the CAA and EPA is not their end, but their means. A positive result does not justify abuse of process. If the CAA and EPA have powers beyond what is legitimate, and they are nevertheless recognized, what stops the same branches of power (be it Congress or the Executive or the judiciary) from abusing this same extension of authority for malicious purposes? The division and separation of powers exists for the purpose of preventing this abuse so that process is democratic and representative, and it does so reasonably well when respected.

Respect for the environment is a totally separate issue from respect for the mechanisms that prevent abuse. If people are poisoning each other, there are valid non-abusive mechanisms to prevent that. If no such mechanism exists then, and only then, should the system be reformed. Thankfully the system in the US is sufficiently flexible that no such reform appears to be necessary, in the long run.

Thirteenth Amendment

[tepples (727027)]

As Congress does not possess power itself to regulate carbon dioxide emissions

Even when carbon dioxide emissions in one state interfere with the ability of another state to conduct commerce?

While it is a Good Thing that the slave population was officially outlawed (nevermind the gaping hole in the 13th Amendment which allows for a simple jaywalking ticket to make a person eligible for slavery)

The loophole in this constitutional amendment [wikipedia.org] is there to allow for forced labor for felons serving time in prison. Any slave camp established by the government would be considered a de facto prison, and there's still a ban on cruel and unusual punishments [wikipedia.org] such as long prison terms for minor misdemeanors. Have you any evidence that the amendment has been applied in some other manner?

Re:

[theodicey (662941)]

there's still a ban* on cruel and unusual punishments

*does not apply if "The Decider" dubs you a terrorist. Not valid in leased US territories within Cuba or overseas military bases.

Re:No change

[Comatose51 (687974)]

Well, if you believe what most economists believe, which is things like pollution is considered externality and the cost of production, then air pollution would fall under commerce. This is especially true considering the fact that you can trade carbon credits and can actually monetize carbon or the lack of carbon emission.

Re:

[_Sharp'r_ (649297)]

The decision itself basically said that sirst, Massachusetts as a State has special standing to pursue the case, second, Greenhouse gases could fall under the EPAs mandate, therefore the EPA needs to issue a ruling with a reason why they aren't regulating them or how they're going to regulate them.

The first part seemed to be crafted by the Liberals on the court in order to let them rule on the second part, since otherwise the case should have just been thrown out on procedural grounds. The majority five did

Re:

[oliphaunt (124016)]

This sounds good, until you know the name of the case you're quoting:

If the transportation of a slave across state lines wasn't eligible for interstate commerce in 1857 then what has changed since then? A Constitutional Amendment was required, even a Civil War wasn't enough, for the slave trade to be considered "commerce".

If this is a troll, it's a clever one: you're using the Dredd Scott decision [wikipedia.org] to support your argument that Congress can't use the Commerce Clause to justify the EPA. But Dredd Scott wa

In a press conference afterwards...

[bluemonq (812827)]

...Carbon stated that the Supreme Court could "take a flying leap," insisting that SCOTUS should spend its time instead worrying about the dangers that Oxygen and Sodium present.

Re:In a press conference afterwards...

[Dunbal (464142)]

He then proceeded to give a tipoff about what Oxygen was doing around the corner with those two Hydrogen fellers....

      And then laughed and laughed, because everyone knows that Carbon can take 4 at a time...

Wow, this article is silly

[Talgrath (1061686)]

So...the author of the article linked says he hasn't seen a breakdown of who voted what...but the New York Times article that he linked to gave him the breakdown. Somebody hasn't been reading their sources.

Important side note

[lelitsch (31136)]

I wonder how much the administration realized the unintended consequences of including a "laundry list" of reasons why they should not regulate emissions. Now they have a sentence like this in a SCOTUS decision:

"While the president had broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."

This might so come back to haunt them as precedent.

Re:

[Technician (215283)]

The AP coverage stresses that the ruling upholds the right of states to sue the Federal government over issues of global warming.

Maybe they will suddnly change the studies to show CO2 is only a small contributor to warming, say on the order of burning a candle in a house causes the house to become warmer.

After all, our global warming is the same as the global warming and loss of polar ice caps on Mars. It must be the sun that is the big factor, just like your house gets colder in winter and warmer in summ

Re:Important side note

[schwit1 (797399)]

"While the president had broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws." This would seem to say that bypassing FISA for searches or refusing to enforce immigration laws is illegal.

Re:

[Brandybuck (704397)]

Precisely. The law is not a one way street. Most of the executive powers that make people "fear" Bush were in place during the Clinton administration. Take them away from Bush and you also take them away from any future Democrat presidents. That's why so much of the Democrat congress are acting so strangely: they want those laws, powers, and abuses in place when one of their own finally gets back in the White House.

Re:

[mdsolar (1045926)]

Thanks! I'm just reading the opinion. Apparently the EPA argued that by misbehaving itself, it gained leverage over other countries. Wow.

EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate. For example, EPA said that a number of voluntary executive branch programs already provide an effective response to the threat of global warming, 68 Fed. Reg. 52932, that regulating greenhouse gases might impair the President's ability to

Bodes poorly for U.S. oil imperialism

[michaelmalak (91262)]

This decision bodes poorly for the U.S. in regards to the Big Climate Lawsuit [climatelawsuit.org], whereby Boulder is suing two U.S. government agencies over global warming drying up Boulder's water reservoirs. Three California cities have since joined the lawsuit.

The two agencies, the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, are a form of corporate welfare to Big Oil. When Big Oil wants to destroy the environment in a third world country, banks shy away due to political instability. In steps the U.S. government to provide taxpayer-guaranteed loans.

The lawsuit is over the narrow issue of that these agencies did not do environmental impact studies in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Now that the Supreme Court has already ruled that carbon dioxide may be classified as a pollutant, the district court that is deciding the Big Climate Lawsuit must follow precedence.

I would rather have seen OPIC and Ex-Im dismantled over the fundamental reasons they are wrong: unconstitutional, corporate welfare, exploitation of third world countries, and destruction of the environment directly attributable to oil drilling and transport. But as is usually the case, the strongest legal case does not necessarily correlate to the strongest moral/ethical case.

Waiting to Exhale...

[1zenerdiode (777004)]

Holding: Carbon dioxide is a pollutant...emissions can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Perverse Outcome: Administrative rules could make it illegal to breathe.
Alternative Constitutional Theory to Challenge the Ruling: Tension between First Amendment and Commerce Authority since it is necessary to breathe in order to speak freely.

Alternatively, massive new entitlement programs may be funded by requiring the purchase of respiratory carbon credits.

Next year: Increasing the entropy of the surroundings will constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act. Do your part to limit your entropy footprint.

Re:

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Next year: Increasing the entropy of the surroundings will constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act. Do your part to limit your entropy footprint.

Don't worry, I am. Every day I add another layer of blocks to my neatly ordered stack in the corner, creating order where before there was a chaotic bag of blocks, thereby offsetting my entropy.

Great regulated respiration

[katorga (623930)]

Oh boy, now the EPA can regulate breathing, how often, how much, how deeply.

All those mammals...they just gotta go.

Re:

[belg4mit (152620)]

I know you fucks are either trolls or think you're being "insightful" or "funny", but seriously,
stop it. Biologically active carbon is part of a recirculating cycle, mineralized carbon in fossil
fuels has been out of the cycle for a long time*, and adding it back in the form of CO2 is the
problem NOT BREATHING. However, if you seriously think breathing is a problem, then by all means,
do us all a favor and STOP. kthxbai

* And as an animal, that's a good thing. 20% atmospheric O2 is tasty.

Politician claims CO2 not an air pollutant...

[rthille (8526)]

So I say lets open a big bottle of it in his office while he's there.

When (if?) he wakes up, let's ask him again if he thinks CO2 is a pollutant...

Re:

[Saint V Flux (915378)]

CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Volcanoes, vents in the earth, every living creature, decomposition, etc all release CO2 into the atmosphere. Plants require CO2 as well and without plants humans and animals cease to exist. So yea, lets get right on eliminating CO2 and the subsequent annihilation of the human race.

Re:

[BJZQ8 (644168)]

Nobody ever pays attention to the coal fires. If it were REALLY about limiting carbon emissions, we would go solve that problem. ONE of those fires puts out more CO2 than every automobile in the US, and they are burning all over the world. It's not about "saving the planet"...it's about establishing a stock market for carbon trading that will make a few well-positioned people trillions of dollars.

Re:

[Brandybuck (704397)]

Your'e not making any sense. If the CO2 drives out all of the oxygen, then it's harmful. Otherwise it's just as safe as nitrogen. Are you suggesting that nitrogen be regulated as a pollutant as well? Water vapor (THE major greenhouse gas)? Helium (thing of the children and their balloons)?

By your argument, EVERYTHING is a pollutant that can be regulated by the EPA!

Not about Global Warming

[Brandybuck (704397)]

I know that many of you are cheering that the SCOTUS turned Green and environmentalist, but that's not the case. This ruling isn't about global warming, or carbon, or even Al Gore's haircut. The ruling merely says that an executive department must stay within the bounds of a legislative statute. That the department happens to be the EPA and the statute the Clean Air Act is merely incidental.

To quote: "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."

Direct Impact of CO2 itself?

[Guppy (12314)]

Something I've been wondering, being a biologist, is the direct impact on humans of the higher levels of CO2 itself (as opposed to indirect effects such as climate shifts).

Interestingly enough, humans don't have any way to sense the oxygen concentration in air. The air in a nitrogen filled room can feel perfectly fresh right up to the point where you get dizzy and pass out. Instead, we sense CO2 concentrations -- a room with normal levels of O2 but several percent CO2 will be distinctly unpleasant to breath. At about 1000ppm CO2 a room may start to feel stuffy.

I've heard of some projections () of 650-970 ppm CO2 by 2100. The change over time will certainly be too slow for anyone to notice, but I find it remarkable that we may be heading to the point where outdoor air will be as high in CO2 as what we now consider stale. [wikipedia.org]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[scorp1us (235526)]

I expect to be modded down again for another dissenting opinion, but such is the case when there is no good science to settle the argument either way. The mob applies leverage and attempts science by consensus (History shows that consensus has almost always started out wrong to begin with).

I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle [google video] AND Inconvienent Truth.

I have to say, other than a nice graph of carbon dioxide and temperature, the rest of the film was science by consensus. "90% of scientists now agree". Furthermore, Al only makes the statement that "the relationship between the [two lines] is a complicated one". With that one line, he avoids the actual science of global warming. It allows him to gloss over any kind of investigation of solar activity, dissolved CO2 levels in the oceans, the ratio of CO2 to other green house gasses. Yes, there is more than one, but Al never mentions that. Instead he only shows the PPM increase, and not a percentage increase. He also fails to go into why the upper atmosphere is not increasing in temperature whereas ground temps are (hint: solar radiation heats the ground more effectively than green house gasses)

What we have, and everyone has to admit this, is the only real correlation is our ability to measure CO2 in PPM, and an increase in temperatures (at the same time an increase in solar activity). Anyone with statistics experience will tell you correlation is not causation. We simply have to wait for the many factors to fluctuate so we can tease out the real relationship.

I love the environment and animals (I was going to be a park ranger), but I call BS (Bad Science) when I see it. How embarrassing will it be in 50 years, when we've passed a local solar maximum and things are back to normal? Until our confidence [and understanding] is so high in the matter, we shouldn't be legislating first and asking questions later.

Re:

[terraformer (617565)]

Ahh, it is pretty clear actually. Those are electrons powering your computer and there are electrons making your network run and there are electrons lighting up your screen, etc, etc...

Re:

[PocketPick (798123)]

Oh just come off it now...Slashdot posts articles that cater to interests it's users as a whole, not just techies and nerds. Just because it doesn't deal with Linux, overclocking or buffer overflows doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

It's really "The Courts"

[Ungrounded Lightning (62228)]

How is this Your Rights Online?

It's really "The Courts". (Unfortunately that seems to be lumped into YRO.)

How is it News for "Nerds" ?

  - It's regulation of tech.
  - It's related to science.
  - It's going to require major technological innovation.
  - It's likely to drastically affect nerds' ability to use technology and/or energy.

Just for starters

Re:YRO?

[CastrTroy (595695)]

The online part is that this is slashdot, and you're reading about your right while online. At least that's always the way I've interpreted it since it seems that about 50% of the stories have nothing to do with our rights on the internet.

Thank you for your cooperation

[alienmole (15522)]

News that matters to lefties.

So as a presumably non-lefty, you don't care about this SCOTUS decision? That's good, because there are plenty more where that one came from, and it's nice to know you're just going to sit back and accept them!

Re:

[vandan (151516)]

You don't get out much, do you? Or maybe you know better, and that's why you're posting this trash AC?

Dissent

[Dirck_the_Noorman (1072638)]

From Scalia's dissent: The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not 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. From Roberts' dissent: The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land...The mismatch suggests that petitioners' true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases--not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) ("[Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action")...The limitation of the judicial power to cases and controversies "is crucial in maintaining the tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution." http://tinyurl.com/yttruw [tinyurl.com]