D.C. Appeals Court OKs EPA Rules on Greenhouse Gases
From Reuters By Ayesha Rascoe
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the first-ever U.S. proposed regulations governing heat-trapping greenhouse gases, handing a setback to major industries like coal-burning utilities and a victory to the Obama administration and environmental groups.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and setting limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were “neither arbitrary nor capricious.”
In the 82-page ruling, the court also found that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is “unambiguously correct.”
The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to review the timing and scope of greenhouse gas rules that affect stationary sources like new coal-burning power plants and other large industrial sources.
The court in February heard arguments brought by state and industry challenging the EPA’s authority to set carbon dioxide limits.
(Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel, writing by Chris Baltimore; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/us-usa-co2-ruling-idUSBRE85P10920120626
h/t to reader Jack Simmons
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is unambiguously correct to state that a human being’s body is a transportation device that emits the same evil gas. Each ambulation is a threat to public safety. Every one of them, including the arbitrary and capricious ones, should be regulated by the EPA as well.
– HH
The breadth and depth of their ignorance is astounding…
This is a victory for science. The Court noted that the EPA relied on assessments by the IPCC, USGCRP and NRC and stated:
These peer reviewed assessments synthesized thousands of individual studies on various aspects of greenhouse gases and climate change and drew “overarching conclusions” about the state of the science in this field.
REPLY: It might be a “victory for science”, and the poor science pushed by eco-activists like Hansen and McKibben, but it is also a tragedy for America. – Anthony
A victory for what science Phil? What science supports the contention CO2 is a pollutant?
It might be a “victory for science”, and the poor science pushed by eco-activists like Hansen and McKibben, but it is also a tragedy for America. – Anthony
And your scientific evidence for the “poor science” and “eco-activism” in all of these thousands of studies is found where?
Phil C … Only a non-scientist would say that IMHO…
I would have expected nothing else from the DC circuit court. They haven’t been particular about the law in the past. How long do you think it’ll be before the supreme court is involved?
Time to fix the Clean Air Act. Time to fix Congress so it can be done.
WOW, What a great victory for grey literature and Pseudo-science with no raw data to back it up.
Let us all hold a moment of silence to commemorate the DEATH of REAL Science at the hands of the US Court system.
With this ruling all the pharmaceutical companies and other fields of science who have been found corrupt can show there is now a legal precedent for Snake Oil.
For example:
Looks like Smeester is now in the clear [/sarc]
But it is arbitrary and capricious for EPA to cherrypick questionable studies and to single out emissions such as ozone as the dominate cause of asthma impact. If the FDA standards for drug testing and approval were applied to EPA mandates and regulatory process, we would have elevated levels of sanity to report on.
Carbon dioxide is a public danger?
Dear God, America, what has happened to you?
Phil C says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:10 am
The Court noted that the EPA relied on assessments by the IPCC, USGCRP and NRC and stated
=====================================================
I am not an expert on the field of American judicial system, but my common sense tells me, that if the IPCC assessments can not be challenged before an American court, then any decision of EPA based on these assessments should be dismissed. The central point is, in case someone does not understand, not whether the IPCC is right or wrong, but only whether it is possible or not to challenge their assessments before an American court.
“victory for science”?
“The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to review the timing and scope of greenhouse gas rules that affect stationary sources like new coal-burning power plants and other large industrial sources.”
Don’t worry Phil C – our victory over the bloated and wasteful climate science budgets will come in November…
There was patently no science involved in this ruling, the EPA, or the IPCC. Greenhouses gases as they define them do not exist and no gas of any kind, even a trace gas, can warm the climate.
This is a dark day for science.
Just as with DDT, they literally do not have one defensible piece of valid science to support their claims that CO2 has anything to do with our climate. Furthermore, they have even less to show for any influence by CO2 from human activities. The banning of DDT was totally political, a move to give the environmentalists power by handing them a victory (despite there being NO evidence against DDT). Thanks, Ruckelshaus, not!
This is a political agenda. It is simply our Undocumented Worker-in-Chief doing another end run around Congress because Congress rightly refused to do cap and trade.
The Clean Air Act is a poorly written piece of legislation, being much too vague, and needs to be repealed and replaced with much more specific language. To consider CO2 an air pollutant is totally laughable, except for the fact that the EPA intends to destroy our economy and way of life through this claim.
It would of course be insane to offer the GCMs of the global warming alarmists as proof of their predictions. That would make less sense than offering the Bible as proof that the Earth was created in seven days. But, try telling that to EPA science authoritarians. It does not matter to the EPA that we all know the truth: that GCMs are nothing but simple-minded toys that have been ‘tuned’ through the use of parameters to mimic observations, after the fact. Everyone knows that the forecasting ability of GCMs is demonstrably deficient because they cannot even ‘predict’ the past or be validated.
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/carpetbaggers-usurp-blood-sweat-and-sacrifice/
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and setting limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were “neither arbitrary nor capricious.”
In the 82-page ruling, the court also found that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is “unambiguously correct.”
That probably is intended to mean “regulate carbon dioxide emissions”.
The flaw is in the law. The Court has only ruled that the EPA’s interpretation of the law is correct, and that EPA’s ruling was neither arbitrary nor capricious: that is, the EPA ruling did not violate due process of law. Congress wrote the law, Congress has to rewrite the law. That the policy is bad, as most readers and writers here agree, is not for the Court to decide.
“Supreme Court OKs EPA Rules on Greenhouse Gases”
District Court, not Supreme Court
[REPLY: An Appeals Court for the District Circuit…. fixed, thanks. -REP]
Time to impeach some activist judges on charges of malfeasance.
Um. I’m a confused Brit. It says “Supreme Court OKs EPA Rules(…)” and “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled (…)”, but Wikipedia says they’re not the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_court#Courts_in_the_District_of_Columbia
[REPLY: You are correct. Fixed. -REP]
Phil C says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:20 am
And your scientific evidence for the “poor science” and “eco-activism” in all of these thousands of studies is found where?
—-
The last couple of thousand entries at WUWT.
PhilC: “And your scientific evidence for the “poor science” and “eco-activism” in all of these thousands of studies is found where?” Upside down Tilhander, stripped bark trees, Law Dome.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:46 am
The Court has only ruled that the EPA’s interpretation of the law is correct, and that EPA’s ruling was neither arbitrary nor capricious
==================================================
Well, if EPA based their decision on the IPCC assessments, then it is arbitrary. Or is there an American law stating the IPCC assessments must be considered right? I do not think so. There are other assessments contradicting the ones of the IPCC.
It might be a “victory for science”, and the poor science pushed by eco-activists like Hansen and McKibben, but it is also a tragedy for America. – Anthony
The law gives to the EPA the authority to decide what studies to include in its reviews, and how to appraise them all together. Unless the Court can find some clearly (legally and operationally) defined arbitrariness, then it hasn’t the authority to overturn the EPA ruling. If it is true, as it seems to be, that most scientists side with the EPA on this ruling, then we wouldn’t want the Court to overturn the EPA just because a minority of scientists disagrees with the EPA.
Right now, most Americans do not believe that CO2 is a pollutant that should be regulated. So now is the time for voters to engage in what it takes to get the laws rewritten and overturn this decision.
“and a victory to the Obama administration and environmental groups and the natural gas, nuke, and hydro industries that fund them
I thought I should add some truth to that statement.
DesertYote: Time to impeach some activist judges on charges of malfeasance.
The judge only ruled that EPA acted within its authority. That’s hardly “activist”, and definitely not malfeasance.
Phil,
The question before the court is jurisdiction and not science. Can the EPA write their own laws? To classify CO2 as a “poisonous gas” is the job for Congress. And Congress refused to do so. So, Progressives took an unusual step. They had individual states sue the EPA and they won.
As one person already commented, Congress needs to amend the Clean Air Act and repeal this ruling. We’ve arrived at a strange place in our history. The Executive Branch is selectively enforcing existing laws, while at the same time creating new ones. And the Courts are enabling all of this.