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.
Welcome, America! Welcome to the debilitating madness engendered by the Socialist Agenda. You are encumbered with your Environmental Protection Agency and we in the UK are shackled by the infamous Climate Change Act of 2008.
This Act has as its aim the following, “It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.”
Read the rest here, and weep: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents
Despite our present ‘governing body’ (I will not grace them with the term ‘Parliament’) talking about hesitant moves towards making minor reductions in the extortionate subsidies paid to those who are reaping fortunes from ‘green energy’ scams, we are no closer to negating this evil Act.
In order to abide by this so-called Law of the Land, the Act will require the total abolition of all industrial undertakings, a reduction of over 50% in our present population and the abolition of any form of mechanically propelled transportation in order that its demands are met.
An examination of this dreadful legislation and a subsequent comparison with the ‘Directives’ issued by the unelected bureaucrats of the EU will demonstrate clearly that we in the UK are no longer masters of our own fate. Our ‘governing body’ has surrendered our sovereignty to a foreign Socialist-dominated entity, an entity which is crushing Europe in order to re-build it into the EUSSR.
We in the UK can only hope that the present financial debacle sees the end of the malignant European Union political experiment, there’s no other way out. Can you in America dispose of the cold, dead hand of your EPA before your great country succumbs to the political dead-end of Socialism?
According to Phil C
CO2 could be banned in some countries, and legalised in others.
This could lead to a tourist boom to countries where the substance is legalised (to the over 18’s), people might go to sit in back rooms and smoke hubbly bubbly CO2 pipes. We could have a whole new sub culture of warmists who get ‘caught’ doing illicit CO2
‘I love my wife, but it was the danger. the excitement. the rising levels. the rebellion. omg, I am so ashamed’
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.
————
It’s ambiguous. It’s not clear if the EPA lacks jurisdiction to apply these regulations or whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to make a judgement.
REPLY: It doesn’t matter, the EPA will steamroll over it in any case, much like you, they don’t care what the American public or courts thinks – Anthony
@Tim Mantyla says:
[text corrected]
Nice bit of irony here. The words “hoist” and “petard” come to mind.
The Executive Branch is selectively enforcing existing laws, while at the same time creating new ones.
———
I don’t know about your part of the world but here there is a distinction between regulations and laws.
If that distinction does apply where you live then it appears you do not understand the basics of your own political system.
He, If they want to legalize pot, the pot needs CO2.
Why don’t they ban smoling pot by amending the constitution? It creates CO2 and soot.
Will Obama scold this court like he does other judges?
Gosh how are we going to tell all the vegetarians that plants live on poison?
The obvious answer is to turn of the supply of electrictiy from coal or fossil fuel sources to ‘ALL’ EPA facilities.
It really is about time this sort of thing was done. The CAGW CO2 haters should be made to prractice what they want to preach.
NO coal of fossil fuel for them. Or petrol either.
Make them run TOTALLY on renewables.
Sort of like giving them a clip about the back of the head to bring them to their senses.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:46 am
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.
=========================
Where can we find out who signed this law into effect? I would like to know who the sponsers were, who in the House and The Senate and their political affilliation and which President signed it. The law identification or reference number, dates of passage in each chamber of Congress, and Presidential approval would be greatly appreciated. I would assume that you know that info and I would be hard pressed to find it. Thanks in advance.
What we really need is a law that states that no un-elected body can make law and that elected bodies are not permitted to deligate law making powers to unelected bodies.
There’s no point in arguing with people like Phil C or Tim Mantyla. It’s exactly the same as arguing with creationists over evolution. Instead of embracing a traditional fundamentalist religion, they practice the new age religion of environmentalism. An argument of science versus faith cannot be won. The two are starting from different premises. The best way to handle this is to recognize who they are and vote anyone out of office who wants to use the power of government to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. We don’t allow any other religion to run government, why do we allow this one? My answer to this is that we are not correctly recognizing who they are. They’ve been very successful in conflating faith and science into something they call environmentalism. It’s not my goal to dissuade anyone of their beliefs (I know I can’t) but we’ll be much better off when the religion of environmentalism and the science of environmentalism can be segregated into two entities and we can begin to have science debates separate the faith component.
Kit P says
The EPA is now making up ‘public dangers’ with the intent of using the power of government to close down coal plants.
———-
Well that’s not the intent but it is the effect.
It appears that the public dangers ruling is based not on the here and now, but on projections into the future and the impossibility of undoing any bad consequences if those bad consequences materialise.
Great, plant food is a public danger.
Starving the carbon economy is a danger.
How about water? More people are killed by water than CO2. Ban it.
beesaman says:
June 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm
What we really need is a law that states that no un-elected body can make law and that elected bodies are not permitted to deligate law making powers to unelected bodies.
Yes! This is major problem. Lawmakers come and go but these powerful unelected agencies never go. I don’t think they should have any power beyond making a recommendation to the elected officials. But I’m also of the opinion that none of the agencies should be created until a constitutional amendment is passed creating them and stating exactly what they can do and how they will be funded.
Merovign says:
June 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
How about water? More people are killed by water than CO2. Ban it.
———————————————-
We must destroy the evil clouds.
Tim Mantyla: Inhofe is a moron and in corrupt thrall to Big Oil/Coal/Chemical.
On this issue he agrees with me, and I think he is taking the correct action.
eyesonu: Where can we find out who signed this law into effect?
Nixon signed it in 1970. It has been amended since.
Summary of the Clean Air Act (cited in the opinion ) is here: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/caa.html
You can follow the hot links to the full text, and to its full legislative history.
I expect Texas to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. If so, we will be able to read what Texas officials think are the flaws in the decision. Then, if the Supreme Court takes it up, we shall be able to read the briefs, amicus curiae, oral arguments and decision. Based on what I have read to date, I would expect the Supremes to let the judgment stand — that is, not even take up the case.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epa
Read it and weep.
/Mr Lynn
Only thing that can save the world now is a two-thirds majority in both houses of congress or three fifths of the states decide they have to piss or get off the pot.
Tim Mantyla says:
June 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Climate science supports the contention that CO2 is a pollutant…of sorts.
========================================================
This is not true, details here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119 .
Not to feed such blatant trolling (and obvious baloney), but more to remind others of Prof. Robert G. Brown’s eloquent discussion of the science behind the Climate Realist position, see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/a-response-to-dr-paul-bains-use-of-denier-in-scientific-literature/#more-66096
As for Mr. Mantyla, let us invite him to present any empirical evidence whatsoever (the Argument from Authority doesn’t count, and model runs are not empirical evidence) that anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels is responsible for any measurable change in Earth’s climate(s), especially when considered in the context of, as Prof. Brown says, “the complete geological record of global temperature variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the last billion years”—where, he says, “one learns that there is absolutely nothing remarkable about today’s temperatures!”
/Mr Lynn
Tim Mantyla says:
June 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Greg House says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:58 am
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,
Logically, EVERY assessment, taken alone, could contradict IPCC assessments because the IPCC synthesizes its report from the best assessments…
Conclusion: the statement about “other assessments contradicting the ones of the IPCC” has no useful meaning.
=========================================================
I really like it, Tim. Look, what you have done: your premise is that the IPCC assessments are the best and conclusion is that the others are not good. In fact, your premise and your conclusion are identical. It is the worst logical fallacy one can commit.
Usually (evil) people use this propaganda trick to mislead others. Congratulations, you are in the good company.
Tim Mantyla says:
again & again & again & again….
There’s a new troll in town!
But he has no shame — thoughtlessly dumping tons of hot air on this thread alone. One shudders to think how much gas he burns, electricity he uses, food he eats, water he drinks, air he breathes, land he occupies….
What do you get when cross a moron with an A-hole…..? You know the answer.
So the EPA has given you a lemon. 🙁 A nice get-along Republican just needs to ask themselves, What are some nice “market-based solutions” to these new EPA regulations of carbon dioxide? What kind of clean cars and trucks will we actually get to drive after the appropriate $20 billion in spending in research in car technology by the US Govt? How will I continue to enjoy the benefits of the auto-maker bailouts? How many jobs can be created by switching over to a low carbon economy? How can we “attract investors” in the new markets for the new cars we will be driving by order of the EPA? Remember to make lemonade.
So the EPA has broken a window. 🙁 But that is not so bad, because of the economic activity that this will stimulate. For example, Goldman-Sachs “has set a $40 billion target for financing and investing in clean techology companies over the next decade…– in sectors such as solar, wind, geothermal, energy-efficiency, green transportation and advanced biofuels – along with efforts to develop market-based solutions to some of the world’s most pressing environmental issues.” Goldman-Sachs and coincidentally the Republican candidate both have particular “free market solutions” that just happen to fix this broken window in really grand style. It’s all just a matter of how you look at it – ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas.