Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases

UnknowingFool writes In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA on some limits to greenhouse gases but also upheld other limits. In a 5-4 partial decision, the high court ruled that EPA overstepped their authority in requiring permits only for greenhouse gases for new and modified facilities using the Clean Air act. Such regulatory action can only be granted by Congress. But in the same case on a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the EPA can enforce greenhouse gas limits on facilities that already require permits for other air pollutants. This leaves intact most of the new regulations proposed by the Obama administration earlier this month as many coal plants produce other air pollutants that can be regulated by the EPA.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

And NOT enforcing, say, banking or clean air regulations, a la Bush is known as "malfeasance".

Re:Right decision, wrong reason?

[i kan reed]

This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.

But don't let me stop you from making things up, just because your ideology demands that the science be wrong, thus imagining acting on the science is wrong, thus twisting your mind to invent new and interesting ways of stating the opposite of reality.

Re: Right decision, wrong reason?

[VTBlue]

The function of the executive agency is precisely to create and uphold rules. Most people think congressional laws detail out rules; this is mostly wrong. One clear example showing the difference between agency rules and laws is the American Disabilities Act of 1990. It's a very short law, but the executive agencies that enforce the laws have well over 100,000 pages of rules, none of which are defined verbatim in the law.

Congress's job is not to micromanage, it is to appropriate funds, enact legislation and oversee the executive during the life of the legislation.

That's what happens when Congress is lazy

[Jabrwock]

Well then Congress shouldn't give them that power? That was the court's finding, that Congress had already authorized the EPA to regulate any gases produced at a plant that also produces named pollutants. So CO2 gets lumped in with the rest under their blanket authority over existing polluters. Which is why they struck down the ability to expand their authority to non-polluting entities. It was outside their existing jurisdiction.

Congress does that a lot, authorizes blanket authority, and then bitches when it gets exercised. It's like they don't read the bills they pass or something...

Re:Give me a break.

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

And, of course, that's got NOTHING to do with the fact that it's big businesses who are the ones fouling the global commons for their own selfish profit. Again.

Re:Right decision, wrong reason?

[CWCheese]

Indeed you are very correct, this government is become a dictatorship, abetted by a feckless Congress. It matters not whether you're lib/con or dem/repub, this is dangerous when the next changeover of power occurs, and it will occur. What the President has loosed now will be used against his party in the future.

Too bad my mod points are all gone now, you deserve +3.

Re:Give me a break.

[lactose99]

Uh, Big Business is doing a fantastic job of destroying the middle-class without the EPA even being involved.

Redefine what "is" is

[jabberw0k]

CO2 is what animals exhale and plants breathe. If CO2 is a pollutant, then so is rainwater. And soon no law has meaning, once they are all subject to such fun-house-mirror distortion. War is peace, freedom is slavery, comrade!

Re:Give me a break.

[Sique]

It's just a coincidence that every law is anti-big business. Imagine all the business opportunities, if big business could just hire some gun men and force people out of their houses! Those pesky property laws are so totally anti-big business. It's so anti free market that the people with more and better guns shouldn't be able to expand their market share.

Re:Give me a break.

[riverat1]

These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms

That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.

Re:Redefine what "is" is

[TapeCutter]

Who ever gave you the idea that pollution must be toxic? Pollution = "a resource out of place". eg: don't pollute my scotch with water.

Re:Give me a break.

[Curunir_wolf]

(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature [economicpo...ournal.com])

Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself :-)

Apparently because that's all you've got. Pointing to a Wikipedia article created and religiously (yes) guarded by climate change alarmist politicos really doesn't make much of an argument, does it?

That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over. And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.

Re:Give me a break.

[machineghost]

That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over.

Great, so you got a link to that survey of climate scientists where they all say it's a scam?

And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.

Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented, the only way to even try to have a dialogue is to reference an impartial source like a survey of a large numbers of scientists. Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something, they *could* all be wrong ... but they probably aren't.