Green Hell Blog writes: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused late Friday to stop the EPA’s greenhouse gas rules from going into effect on January 2, 2011. The litigation over the rules will continue, but the court will allow them to go into effect pending the outcome of the litigation.
From WaPo
A U.S. appellate court Friday turned down a request from utilities, oil refiners and the state of Texas to delay the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency.
As a result, the EPA and state agencies can begin to insist that companies use the “best available control technologies” to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide to obtain air permits.
The companies and Texas had sought a court order blocking the EPA from moving ahead until the end of a lawsuit challenging the agency’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants and large industrial facilities endanger the health of Americans.
The companies contend in that lawsuit that the EPA regulations would be too costly.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the companies “have not shown that the harms they allege are ‘certain,’ rather than speculative.”
h/t to Green Hell Blog
full story at the WashingtonPost
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These moves are not out of stupidity, rbateman. They know exactly what they are doing and the good of the people is not on their list of priorities.
Mark
Apparently, the US economic system and our Constitution are in the way of the new world order.
The damages to the companies are speculative?
How about the EPA’s findings about CO2 are not only speculative, but fraudulent and conspiratorial?
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
January 31, 2011 at 8:44 pm
““The Barrosso bill would repeal the endangerment finding, overriding the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The bill would bar the President and federal agencies from using the science, published by the National Academy of Sciences and others, on which the endangerment finding is based for policy, guidance, or regulations.”
Good luck with all of THAT!!”
Sounds like they don’t like the idea of the legislature actually legislating – they want the court to concentrate that power in the hands of a few unaccountable people. Why do they even make the pretense of being democratic?
I also like their weaselly little wordplay; how they targeted only the “well-mixed” greenhouse gases nobody would have to point out that water vapor contributes far more to the “greenhouse effect” than the other gases they want to regulate. Even if people are stupid enough to outlaw that which they exhale they aren’t stupid enough (yet) to outlaw water vapor.
Meanwhile sen Kerry, rep Markey have ther hand out for heating oil relief for the ” coldest winter in living memory”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/news/x286169651/Kerry-Markey-announce-8-6M-in-heating-assistance-for-struggling-families
“rbateman says:
January 31, 2011 at 8:15 pm
R. de Haan says:
January 31, 2011 at 8:33 pm”
Egypt is not the only country in the ME in turmoil. I am sure we are all aware of Tunisia recently however, what hasn’t been reported too much are similar riots in Jordan. We here in Australia expect to see rises of 5-10% per litre of petrol as a direct result of the unrest because much oil from the region goes down the Suez Canal (Market “speculators” doing what they do best).
The whole region seems to be suffereing the jitters, even more so than usual, and is being dragged even further into an abyss. Obama is firmly rooted between a rock and a hard place. He can’t be seen to be, still, supporting Murbarak as well as supporting free, democratic, elections for the people (Who want Murbarak out).
James Sexton says:
January 31, 2011 at 5:42 pm
James, I’m on your side. Don’t tell anyone. I’m an elected official, I just play an idiot on blogs. I’m fighting for the little guy, doing everything I can. It’s hard. I see the garbage the state is pushing on everyone. What you describe is exactly what we have to remember is the reality behind the numbers like ‘median income’. There are people really hurting. The state isn’t helping. Instead it is pushing small agencies and districts over the edge with the apparent goal of usurping local rights. It’s too inconvenient to allow local control; everything should be centrally planned. Sound familiar? CCCP, tovarishch.
With ESP’s and scrubbers, combined with urea injection for Oxides of Nitrogen abatement, coal power IS clean power! Just say no to our carbon-starved atmosphere.
Long live the King!
The usual MSM misrepresentation:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41411
@Honest ABE says:
January 31, 2011 at 9:40 pm
——-
Thanks for your response, TGL. I just try to be realistic on WUWT, as always.
USEPA is not the EA University CRU amateurs, they operate some of the best environmental labs on earth. Patiently & quietly, they’ve been building their case that greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide primarily) not only cause global warming, but also cause ocean acidification. Please see:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/oa_memo_nov2010.cfm
The relationship between carbon dioxide and acidification is nearly a straight-line effect, unlike “warming,” which is all over the map. If Congress tries to defund EPA on this, they also have to go after the EPA on the water pollution control side (NPDES), RCRA and essentially everything else. Won’t happen.
BTW, I’ve been an environmental advisor to several GOP congressmen, one senator, one governor & one mayor of a large midwestern city. I know the game well, and the EPA came to a knife-fight with a .44 magnum. This game has barely begun.
@ur momisugly James Sexton says:
January 31, 2011 at 5:42 pm
—–
You’re a good man, James! Is your customer dealing with this effect of smart grid billing?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/us/14meters.html
I don’t think anyone at EPA or in the power industry really thought this out before they generally agreed to be regulated (you’ll not read much about that, sorry). Here’s what the power industry is facing for Best Available Control Technology:
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/electricgeneration.pdf
“But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the companies “have not shown that the harms they allege are ‘certain,’ rather than speculative.””
Why not reverse the logic, prove that AGW IS certain and not speculative. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. There’s no proof that AGW is real, and until its proven there should be no new regulations!
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the companies “have not shown that the harms they allege are ‘certain,’ rather than speculative.” As this applies equally to the alleged harms of CO2 surely the onus should be on the EPA to prove the harm rather than the companies to prove the damage
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
January 31, 2011 at 10:32 pm
“Patiently & quietly, they’ve been building their case that greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide primarily) not only cause global warming, but also cause ocean acidification. Please see:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/oa_memo_nov2010.cfm”
I scanned through the report and sure enough they were regurgitating that coral reefs would be affected by ocean acidification. As far as I know the damage originally attributed to CO2 is better correlated with farm runoff and fishing activities.
This makes sense due to the fact that corals evolved when CO2 levels were much higher in the atmosphere – it is unlikely that corals would suddenly become so sensitive to a minor decrease in pH levels when the natural variability of pH within the oceans is so much greater than the decimal points they are worried about.
I have no reason to believe that any increase in CO2 due to fossil fuels will negatively affect ocean life in any significant way, but I have every reason to believe they’ll concoct voodoo science faster than it can be debunked in order to promote their political agenda.
Pamela Gray says:
January 31, 2011 at 6:44 pm
It’s okay, Pam. Better late than never to join the party of good sense. Lol!
As for the D.C. Circuit, more of the same nonsense. This is not a matter that should be left to the courts. The Republicans in Congress need to get on the stick immediately and defund any efforts to implement and enforce these regulations until they can amend the Clean Air Act to take away EPA’s authority to screw up our economy.
Jaye says on January 31, 2011 at 7:33 pm:
“Civil war somebody said? The officer core is mostly from the South and the Midwest. It would be a short war.”
Since the folks in Texas are heavily armed in particular with high-powered hunting rifles, any civil war would probably become long, drawn-out guerrilla warfare, which the military could never win because Texas is so big.
To make some extra cash, the drug cartels could make available weapons such as machine guns, rpg’s, grenades, explosives, mines and so forth.
Since Texas has numerous oil refineries, the state could shut these down and much of the country would come to a grinding halt due to the lack of transportation fuels.
Harold Pierce Jr says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:38 am
Jaye says on January 31, 2011 at 7:33 pm:
“Civil war somebody said? The officer core is mostly from the South and the Midwest. It would be a short war.”
Since the folks in Texas are heavily armed in particular with high-powered hunting rifles, any civil war would probably become long, drawn-out guerrilla warfare, which the military could never win because Texas is so big”
We really should not be talking like this…yet can you imagine the post-normal war us Kaliforians would bring to the table, really we could talk you to death and we could outlaw you guys winning, or anybody winning for that matter.
The court has obviously accepted that AGW is now the “null hypothesis”.
It is up to the defendant to show that AGW is is invalid or speculative.
Welcome to the decline and fall of the United States of America.
U.S. Senators Vow To Strip Obama Of His Climate Power:
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/2349-us-senators-vow-to-strip-obama-of-his-climate-power.html
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
January 31, 2011 at 10:50 pm
@ur momisugly James Sexton says:
January 31, 2011 at 5:42 pm
—–
“You’re a good man, James! Is your customer dealing with this effect of smart grid billing?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/us/14meters.html ”
=======================================================
Well, first of all, its been highly debated as to whether I’m a good man or not. Only my mother has been on the pro side of the debate! As to your link……….
The “smart meters” were, are and will be a thorn in the people’s side for many years to come. I’ve read the stories. Most of the people in the article you linked are in error. I’ve mentioned some of this in the past here, but it is only ancillary to the climate debate. First, while some electro-mechanical(EM) meters have been retrofitted with “modules” to get hourly reads, by in large, the smart meters don’t have rotating parts, they are solid state. What most experienced by an increase in recorded usage was expect and was a selling point to the utilities. The old EM meters had a life expectancy of 20 years to stay within 97% accuracy. After 20 years, the accuracy dropped off significantly…….. the gears wore down. When working, the solid state (SS) meters are much more accurate. The problem lays with other difficulties. It is said that the life expectancy is 10 years. This isn’t my experience, but it could be the manufacturing process has improved. But even still, that’s half of the life expectancy. The cost? EM meters…..about $25. SS meters…..about $200. (for the average 240 v residential kWh meter) Another selling point was that we’d no longer have to hire meter readers. (we never did, our membership was always self-read, with a system check every year) but that’s true, one doesn’t have to hire meter readers anymore. But they do have to hire a net admin. If their smart, a DB administrator, and a programmer, a skilled meter technician, and service technicians to handle the calls about high usage. The technology cost is enormous. Its funny, with the introduction of new information, everyone sees a need to do something with it. Care to guess why hourly reads are important? So we can charge you for using electricity during peak demand. You’re not going to use less, but we’re going to charge you more. Its called Time Of Use(TOU) billing. All of this has a very negligible effect on usage. But the cost that gets passed on, that’s where the difference is. I talked to a board member of a neighboring utility. I asked him when he expects the pay-off.(when the cost of the technology starts paying for itself.) He couldn’t answer.
But, we didn’t stop there. I’m much more concerned about the IEEE comm standard commonly known as Zigbee. All in home displays that I’m aware of come with Zigbee capabilities. This was sold under the pretense that the people were too stupid and lazy to walk to their meter and monitor their own use. We can do it for you and show you in the comfort of your house. Guess what your appliance manufacturers are now equipping your high energy use appliances with? You guessed it! Zigbee capabilities, with a soft switch integrated. We can today, regulate the use of peoples appliances. How long do you reckon before it is mandated? All of this occurs because of the self-imposed energy shortage due to an inordinate fear of a molecule.
I have seen many calls here to cut the EPA off either through funding cuts or dismantlement. As an environmental professional I can tell you that is a very bad idea. The EPA is incompetent, wasteful and mismanaged. However, it performs a vital function of preserving the environment. Industry, left to its own devices, will not adopt sound environmental policies. I make this statement from 20 years of experience cleaning up toxic sites. The EPA is broken. It needs to fixed, not destroyed.
“”””” jae says:
January 31, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Larry:
“I agree zeroing out the EPA budget should be the first order of business in the efforts to cut the federal budget. It should be easy to show they are “non-essential workers” and provide no beneficial service to the people, and are in fact parasites that suck the life out of our economy.”
Look, I’m damn conservative, but you are going WAY too far here. EPA has done a LOT of good, but they have picked all the low-hanging fruit and are now getting stoooopid, in the never-ending saga of organizations trying to perpetuate and enhance themselves. They are now screwing around with issues that have a cost/benefit ratio that is infinitely large.
………………………………
“I agree zeroing out the EPA budget should be the first order of business in the efforts to cut the federal budget. It should be easy to show they are “non-essential workers” and provide no beneficial service to the people, and are in fact parasites that suck the life out of our economy.”
Look, I’m damn conservative, but you are going WAY too far here. EPA has done a LOT of good, but they have picked all the low-hanging fruit and are now getting stoooopid, in the never-ending saga of organizations trying to perpetuate and enhance themselves. They are now screwing around with issues that have a cost/benefit ratio that is infinitely large. Congress should simply freeze their budget at 2000 levels. If they take a sufficiently large hit, the employees will actually have to do something besides manage consultants!
Well jae, it’s obvious from your own words, that you are not at all conservative.
“”””” Congress should simply freeze their budget at 2000 levels. If they take a sufficiently large hit, the employees will actually have to do something besides manage consultants! “””””
If you freeze the EPA budget at the 2000 levels; you are locking in forever expenditures on something the Constitution does not authorize the congress to spend any money on.
A conservative would know what the Constitution authorizes the Congress to raise taxes for (just three things), and the 18-20 things it authorizes them to do.
Obama tried that same BS in his SOTUA; freeze spending at current levels for the next five years. Well the current rate of spending is racking up Teradollar deficits; which are simply being printed. Freezing that insanity is not good for women and children; or old geezers either. Obama says he can dig his way out of the hole. Maybe; but you come out in China. Sane people stop digging. (conservatives too).
“”””” Russell Duke says:
February 1, 2011 at 6:48 am
I have seen many calls here to cut the EPA off either through funding cuts or dismantlement. As an environmental professional I can tell you that is a very bad idea. The EPA is incompetent, wasteful and mismanaged. However, it performs a vital function of preserving the environment. Industry, left to its own devices, will not adopt sound environmental policies. I make this statement from 20 years of experience cleaning up toxic sites. The EPA is broken. It needs to fixed, not destroyed. “””””
“”””” However, it performs a vital function of preserving the environment. “””””
So Russell, I agree with you completely; so let’s fix it.
Step #1 Eliminate, abolish, cancel, negate, and in every other way dismember every single environmental regulation ever promulgated by the EPA.
Step #2 Have the LEGITIMATE Legislative body in this country; aka the United States Congress, make whatever laws are “necessary and appropriate” to carry out the powers delegated to that Congress in Article I Secion 8 of the US Constitution.
We the People, have never authorized the Congress to reassign the legislative powers we gave them; to unelectred third parties; aka the EPA.
wayne says:
January 31, 2011 at 3:28 pm
“…climate scientology”.
Love it!!!!
George E. Smith says:
February 1, 2011 at 8:34 am
George
Let’s think this through. You want the same group that passed a law prohibiting the use of incandescent light bulbs to pass more laws about protecting the environment? The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the vehicle that allows industry (and everything else in this country) to be regulated. Maybe we should start by revamping the process by which the CFR is written and amended. Not all of the rules found in the CFR are bad rules. So to scrap the whole thing seems careless.
RDuke