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
Greg House says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:58 am
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.
—–
Greg,
Which assessments do you refer to? Logically, EVERY assessment, taken alone, could contradict IPCC assessments because the IPCC synthesizes its report from the best assessments (which vary in their conclusions) to reach its published conclusions. It must balance and weigh many assessments, none of which would likely be preserved in their entirety in its synthesis report. In fact, its reports are clearly labeled “Synthesis Report.”
So while you are technically correct, you have left out not only vital evidence for your statement, but also the nuances that affect the perceived verity of the IPCC assessments — which you are clearly casting in doubt. Show us the evidence, and how strong it is, for reasonable doubt. There is no evidence, thus no basis for reasonable doubt of the IPCC reports, based on your statement.
Conclusion: the statement about “other assessments contradicting the ones of the IPCC” has no useful meaning.
As I have contended before, the EPA should not be allowed to enforce any regulations that have not been voted on and passed by the house and senate. Since when does our policing agency get to write and enforce it’s own laws? This authority being wielded by the EPA should be unconstitutional and we need to elect people to the congress and WH this fall that will rectify this problem. What enabled the US to climb tp the top (in addition to a market based economy) was access to almost unlimited and very cheap energy. Cheap and reliable energy is the one thing these DEMS and liberals detest.
Man made CO2 is not even close to being proven as hazardous to our planet. To prevent the US from utilizing carbon based energy sources to produce enormous amounts of cheap and reliable energy to power our economy and way of life is, for a lack of a better word, evil.
The mandate to implement the decision is is suspended for 7 days in order to allow the appellants to request a rehearing en banc (all judges). Failing that, review by SCOTUS is discretionary in response to a petition for review.
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.”
Ok, then who in the public has been harmed by this “public danger”, and it what way were they harmed?
I would like specific examples, where anyone, has been harmed by this increase in carbon dioxide.
The EPA’s desire to regulate, is far more of a public danger, than a small increase of a naturally occurring trace gas, essential to life.
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.”
I agree completey. The EPA’s finding was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
It was partisan agenda driven and unabashedly political.
I am an engineer in the power industry and use science on a daily basis to ensure that the benefits of electricity are not outweighed by the dangers.
Lots of things are dangerous. Ladders are dangerous for example. About 300 people are killed each year as a result of ladder accidents.
Hot water heaters are dangerous. However, because of regulations that require codes and standards be followed there are very few fatalities associated with hot water heaters. The few fatalities that I recall are the result of carbon monoxide poisoning from improperly maintained natural gas hot water heaters.
Being in the power industry I could argue that electric is less dangerous so natural gas hot water heaters should be banned. Of course, I could do a life cycle analysis that shows natural gas hot water heaters produce less ghg.
Some of the wiser folks already know where I am going. The CAA is a clear example of how the public danger of pollution has been reduced to a level where there is no longer a public danger. The EPA did not stop there.
The EPA is now making up ‘public dangers’ with the intent of using the power of government to close down coal plants. The benefits of electricity is that cooking and providing energy for the homes that shelter us so far outweigh the trivial dangerous of producing power. These new regulations are just stupid. Does it make sense to harm the US economy when China has gone from using the same amount of coal to three times the coal?
Henry Galt says:
June 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Sorry. I just can’t stop laughing. The story is so funny. It is bound to bounce.
The only thing, so far, that is more hilarious is the deluded clown @June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am traipsing in here dragging his knuckles and a SS link claiming; “Models work”
You couldn’t make it up….
____________________________
Yes, It is pretty obvious Tim Mantyla is not a farmer and has no idea of where his food comes from. He says:
The guy is absolutely clueless. CO2 + Sunshine = FOOD.
The amount of CO2 contributed by mankind to the carbon cycle is about 4% and given the “greening ” of the earth the plants are shouting GIVE US MORE!
Matthew R Marler says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:21 am
Here is Senator Inhofe’s response.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=29e06bfe-802a-23ad-4ed4-acbf2f498e66
——
Inhofe is a moron and in corrupt thrall to Big Oil/Coal/Chemical. He has a lot to lose just by supporting ANY green energy initiative. Just search online “inhofe campaign donations” and you find: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00005582
Top 5 Contributors, 1989 – 2012
TOTAL INDIVs PACs
Koch Industries $90,950 $48,350 $42,600
Murray Energy $66,300 $41,300 $25,000
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $56,869 $0 $56,869
American Airlines $54,400 $4,250 $50,150
United Parcel Service $53,850 $0 $53,850
Top 5 Industries, 1989 – 2012
TOTAL INDIVs PACs
Oil & Gas $1,390,996 $784,144 $606,852
Retired $679,346 $679,346 $0
Leadership PACs $537,085 $500 $536,585
Health Professionals $476,950 $341,885 $135,065
Electric Utilities $471,067 $45,704 $425,363
Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on (for Fundraising totals, Source of Funds and Total Raised vs Average) and on for Top Contributors and Industries.
Inhofe was, in large measure, part of the impetus for the kangaroo Congressional hearings on climate change in 2007 (date might be wrong on that). These hearings featured cherry-picked rogue scientists and non-scientists who made a joke of real science in an effort to torpedo sorely needed energy policy change. One giant leap backward for mankind and most other creatures.
He uses specious and discredited science from Singer, Soon, Baliunas, Lindzen, among others to support his claim.
Wikipedia: “In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney stated that Inhofe “politicizes and misuses the science of climate change”.[31]’
“In July 2010 Inhofe stated, “I don’t think that anyone disagrees with the fact that we actually are in a cold period that started about nine years ago. Now, that’s not me talking, those are the scientists that say that.” The Union of Concerned Scientists stated that Inhofe stated was in error, pointing to the report by NOAA’s report that through July, 2010 has been the hottest summer on record since 1880. Inhofe added that “People on the other side of this argument back in January, they said, ‘Inhofe, it has nothing to do with today’s or this month or next month. We’re looking at a long period of time. We go into twenty year periods.'” “We’re in a cycle now that all the scientists agree is going into a cooling period”
“In February 9, 2011 sworn testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee[56] Inhofe stated, “I have to admit—and, you know, confession is good for the soul… I, too, once thought that catastrophic global warming was caused by anthropogenic gases—because everyone said it was.” Under questioning from committee member Jay Inslee Inhofe dismissed the notion that he was less knowledgeable than climate scientists, saying that he’d already given “five speeches on the science.”
Inhofe says that global warming is a hoax because “God’s still up there.” WTF?? So he’s the one who everyone must believe…because…well, it MUST be true if he says it! He’s the only expert on the science–according to his own words. LOL! What an arrogant, ignorant dope.
Remember, energy policy was crafted in back-room meetings between Dick Cheney and the big oil companies! Look how it turned out for them: huge industry subsidies–on the backs of the American people when they are making VAST profits!, and very little investment in alternative energy by the government. They got their money’s worth and more.
I don’t believe in the “green energy hampers jobs creation” theory any more than I believe monkeys crawled out of anyone’s butt on Wayne’s World. Follow the big money, and it’s almost always against change.
Look up how green energy production would greatly improve our economy and boost job growth, while improving our soiled environment. Already done it long ago, go ahead and find it yourself.
This is a loss for the rule of law, as agencies are limited by the laws that created them. Only Congress, not a court, has the power to create laws. The Supreme Court should have ruled that the EPA can regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases when a Congress passes a law.
This is a loss for science, as the facts were overshadowed by the output of computer models.
This post is germane here, based on the grim truth that few conservatives understand climate science. It’s a gem from another bright-bulb Congressional denier of climate change, Dana Rohrabacher (from Wikipedia):
“Rohrabacher denies that global warming is caused by humans. During a congressional hearing on climate change on February 8, 2007, Rohrabacher mused that previous warming cycles may have been caused by carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by “dinosaur flatulence.”[58][unreliable source?] He stated, “In fact, it is assumed at best to be unproven and at worst a liberal claptrap, trendy, but soon to go out of style in our new Congress.” On May 25, 2011, Rohrabacher expressed further skepticism regarding the existence of man-made global warming. However, he suggested that if it is an issue, a possible solution could be clear-cutting rain forests, and possibly replanting. This was strongly criticized by scientists, including Oliver Phillips, a geography professor at the University of Leeds. They noted the consensus that intact forests act as net absorbers of carbon, reducing global warming.”
Hello, Congress! WAKE UP! READ THE SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS! Trees ABSORB CO2. Clear-cutting them WORSENS the problem.
So much for Congress deciding energy policy. Leave it to the EPA and other science-based organizations. LEAVE POLITICS OUT.
The dumbest Congresspersons in this area, predictably, are Republican. What does this say for the wisdom of the American people? Why are they electing arrogant, ignorant morons?
Why can’t the GOP contribute to solutions instead of worsening the problem?? Are there ANY smart, compassionate conservatives who UNDERSTAND the connected issues of global warming and climate change? And are willing to fight the dummies?
Dear Phil C @ur momisugly June 26, 2012 at 10:10 am and Tim Manthly @ur momisugly June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am.
Phil, where you stated “This is a victory for science”.
And Tim ,where your state “The finding at setting limits on CO2 emissions is “neither arbitrary nor capricious” is based on solid science as…”
Respectfully, I recommend you read the ruling. Specifically, I recommend your read page 32 where the D.C. Court stated.
“In the end, Petitioners are asking us to re-weigh the scientific evidence before EPA and reach our own conclusion. This is not our role.”
As the D.C. Court stated it did not rule on the “science”, so I don’t feel it is appropriate for you to suggest that the courts have, in any way, endorsed the EPA’s version of “science”.
The ruling merely indicates, in the D.C. Courts opinion, that the EPA was following the statue as written. The question of wither the EPA selectively used only that “science” that suited its purposes was not addressed by the D.C. Court.
By tradition, the re-weighting of the “science” used by federal agency create regulations is not considered the Federal Court’s role. So, I don’t necessarily find fault with the D.C. Court’s reasoning.
One should keep in mind it is prerogative of Congress to decide what the nation’s policies are to be, to clarifying its intent by legislation where necessary, and to likewise decide wither to correct any perceived misuse of an agency’s power’s to regulate.
I would not conclude that “judgment” of any agency “administrator” is, by itself, sufficient grounds to permit overarching regulation. That matter, ultimately, is for the people of the United States to decide… thru their elected representatives.
The ruling, merely underscores the appropriate constitutional limits of the Court and the periodic need for the public to take a firm grip on the mechanisms under which we are governed.
Regards,
Kforestcat
[snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Breaker says: @ur momisugly June 26, 2012 at 12:34 pm
….Decent people lost that battle to progressives in the 1930′s. Congress can pretty much delegate it’s law making authority to whatever agency it wants. That’s they way they delegate the unpopular decisions they secretly want, but cannot vote for because their constituents do not. Dismantling the administrative agencies in the US needs to be a top priority.
___________________________________
Very true.
Worse FDR managed to literally pack the Supreme Court during his years in office as President. Roosevelt appointed 193 federal judges, twice as many as any other president. These included eight Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, elevated one to Chief Justice, appointed 51 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 134 judges to the United States district courts. The last of FDR’s Supremes ended active service in November 12, 1975. This allowed the expansion of the federal government to become solidly entrenched.
So far Obama has appointed two Supremes and Clinton has appointed two, the rest were appointed by Reagan or a Bush.
With a “Packed Court” FDR’s “New Deal” and other moves consolidating power by the Federal government were not declared unconstitutional as they should have been. One of the most critical was the “Commerce Clause” which allows the federal government into your home because what you do “effects interstate commerce”
It seems the Wickard v. Filburn ruling is coming to light again.
The one saving grace is the Supreme Court will over turn its previous decisions though rarely. link
Tim Mantyla says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am
Contrary to some climate change skeptics’ propaganda, CO2 IS a public danger —
—————-
and backs it up with the best-reasoned pro-CAGW reply I have yet seen on WUWT. You are sincerely thanked for your courage to post here.
I did learn a little item in High School Physics which not even this letter is up to: The essence of science is successful prediction. Over and over, we were told Aristotle’s predictions in mechanics in that class–and then falsified them. Using modern mechanics, Galileo predicted that a wooden and a steel ball would land at the same time if dropped from the leaning tower of Pisa. When the experiment was done they made one report (sound). Prediction verified. Similarly, when a feather was brought to the moon on one of the moon landings and dropped at the same time as a heavy object, the feather landed at exactly the same time. Successful prediction–THAT is science.
If we can get that across to the courts, it will be the end of cAGW “science.”
Meantime, this deluded court has killed thousands of people. Its decision supports corn ethanol, which has driven up food prices to deadly effects both directly by starvation and by causing riots. It supports job-killing “alternative” fuels/energy. WUWT has run a number of articles on that. It denies that all life on Earth comes from the reduction of carbon dioxide (reduction means reducing the oxygen content). That means the court’s decision will increase the Earth’s deserts and hinder efforts to grow more food, restore the rainforests, etc.
Facts are stubborn things. They are what they are no matter what we believe, no matter how many logical fallacies we throw at them, no matter how “sincere in our beliefs” we are. Science is a marvelous method for determining what the laws of the universe actually are. But even a correctly done and properly analyzed experiment can be wrong if there was systematic error–or the one time in 100 that you get crazy results just by chance.
As to those who post about the “arrogance” of assuming that humans can affect the climate, you are sadly and provably mistaken. I am currently in the middle of reading Iain Murray’s 2008 book “The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You To Know About–Because They Helped Cause Them.” One of the Seven is drying up the world’s 4th largest inland Sea by using it to irrigate cotton fields. The air became more arid, and summer temperatures rose to 120F.
Examination of the marvellous satellite photos of the whole Earth shows enormous Deserts in latitudes that should be lush–and we know the Sahara WAS lush grassland 5000 years ago or so. At the edges of this waste there are semideserts, nomads, and goats. The goats keep causing the collapse of the ecosystems there. I believe man caused the vast deserts–and man is about to turn it around. Look up “permaculture” or go to http://www.originalsonicbloom.com if you want to help. Eating meat helps if it is from pastured animals that were properly managed.
But life is still based on carbon, and that comes from fossil fuels. We cannot restore the planet’s terrestrial fertility without them.
The real problem is Congress continues to fund the EPA! That leads to the next problem: finding enough Congress critters with the cajones to throttle down the federal teat!
I suggest an upper age limit or setting a term limit to the supreme Court the whole court is in dire need of reform.
Tim MantylaContrary to some climate change skeptics’ propaganda, CO2 IS a public danger — when produced in excess, due to its scientifically measured planetary effects on climate
There are scientifically measured (presumably negative) planetary effects, with direct attribution to CO2? Please do share, just ONE study that has not been shredded to pieces. I’ve been studying this for 6 years now, and have yet to find a definitive link, or anything statistically different from past (insert variable here). THANK YOU!!!
I dont see how this can be a ‘victory for science’ and I dont see how this can be a defeat for science.
Courts of law consider the law and make a judgement. End of story.
The history of societies is full of examples of good laws, bad laws and lunatic laws. This is something for the voters of America to address
If they want Carbon dioxide to be a dangerous gas, so be it. If they want up to be down and down to be up , they can vote for it.
But dont confuse a vote with science, and dont confuse a court judgement with science either.
How can you now teach the Carbon Cycle in schools, now that carbon dioxide has been deemed a “poisonous gas”?
…..if only plants could talk….
Per the great wisdom of the courts: CO2 from one source is dangerous and CO2 from another is OK.
It’s time to play the nuclear power card to eliminate the dangerous gas CO2. Immediately begin construction of enough nuclear capacity to provide all necessary electrical power in the US. Basis is that the court in the nations capital has clearly determined that a naturally occurring gas is absolutely dangerous. That this gas is dangerous could only be rejected if it were determined that the US court system is led by a bunch of kangaroos.
We really need to begin an all-out focus on nuclear construction now. What better time than when the courts in Washington DC and California have demonstrated that it is mandatory for our very existence. Add to that the EPA findings. And the IPCC. And the environmental groups. And the ….
Dave Wendt says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:33 am
Yes and the courts are almost uniformly not competent to decide scientific issues anyway. But the real problem is the laws (Clean Air Act and following acts) are written such that activist groups can sue the EPA and claim they aren’t doing their job regulating some alleged pollutant or another and if the courts side with the plaintiffs, everyone has political cover (we have to do this — it’s a court order). So even though many judges recognize their severe limitations in evaluating scientific controversies, they end up essentially doing exactly that.
Senator Inhofe is correct: Congress needs to change the law. The current President would surely veto such a change, were the Congress able to pass it.
The Congress could simply refuse to fund the EPA, but there would be a political price to pay for that.
Yes, the ‘clean air act’ is flawed, and has been since its enactment. Congress needs to find some gonads and fix it. Not holding my breath.
Every single employee of the Federal government is a public danger and should be removed by any means necessary.
Tim Mantyla June 26, 2012 at 1:44 pm ,
Could you show me some evidence in the pre-2000 period that predicted the stall in warming from 2000 to 2010? Could you explain why known ocean oscillations were not included in the models until recently? If a known wrong model provides correct predictions is it luck or science?