Tuesday, April 3, 2007

"Usual Suspects" on SCOTUS Give Nod to "global warming"

The Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision, saids that the EPA has a “statutory obligation” to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions

Justice John Paul Stevens writes : 'The harms associated with climate change are serious' and that EPA's political reasons for inaction are illegal, 'arbitrary,' he wrote, 'capricious...or otherwise not in accordance with law.'”

Joining him were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony M. Kennedy.

SCALIA, J., dissenting
Unreasonable as to be unworthy of Chevron deference.
* * *
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.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.


EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency is studying the court's ruling.

In the meantime, she defended EPA's voluntary partnerships to reduce emissions. "These national and international voluntary programs are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy," Wood said.

Ann R. Klee, who was general counsel at the EPA from 2004 through mid-2006, said the Bush administration's "options are now considerably more limited." She said EPA could still decide not to regulate carbon dioxide, but only if it also concluded that such emissions do not contribute to climate change or endanger public health and welfare.


This could be a good thing causing the EPA to scientifically, PROVE the harm of "greenhouse gases."

The EPA has to get its act together because it will have to PROVE it needs to regulate.
Moreover, the proof had better be conclusive or there will be another court battle in truth

It is my hope that EPA doesn't try to regulate for the simple reason there is NO conclusive scientific evident of "global warming"

However IF they do regulate the repercussions to American business and citizens could potentially be disastrous. How and in what amount would or could be regulated?

Human beings emit one kilogram of CO2 every day just breathing. If the EPA wanted to, it could regulate that based on this ruling. "Your exhalation papers please, citizen."

Will fireplaces be banned?

BTW RV manufacturer requirements could mean smaller engines and higher prices for RVs and gas or if you want a larger RV/engine will you be required to purchase a very expensive carbon offset tax?

We will defintely be hearing more about this....


nascarnation said...

The unfettered mobility provided by private cars and trucks is very troubling to those in government who desire to control the population. That's why ideas like "carbon restriction" are so exciting to them.

nascarnation said...

The unfettered mobility provided by private cars & trucks is very troubling to socialists. That’s why ideas like regulation of “carbon emissions” are so appealing to them. Plus this will be an invisible tax channeling more money to governments.