From Reuters (h/t to reader John)
U.S. justices to hear challenge to Obama on climate change
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In a blow to the Obama administration, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first wave of regulations aimed at tackling climate change.
By agreeing to hear a single question of the many presented by nine different petitioners, the court set up its biggest environmental dispute since 2007.
That question is whether the EPA correctly determined that its decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles necessarily required it also to regulate emissions from stationary sources.
The EPA regulations are among President Barack Obama’s most significant measures to address climate change. The U.S. Senate in 2010 scuttled his effort to pass a federal law that would, among other things, have set a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
More..
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE99E0GB20131015?irpc=932
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The EPA regulations are among President Barack Obama’s most significant measures to address climate change.
No… they’re among his most naked attempts to pander to the Democrat Party base.
LeeHarvey says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:45 am
…
No… they’re among his most naked attempts to pander to the Democrat Party base.
I’d go one further and quote the politician (whose name I cannot remember) in saying that the reason is the way it will generate the largest revenue stream ever for government.
Nine people stand between America and destruction of the Constitution. Who will not cave in, that’s the question.
SCOTUS should take a mulligan on Massachusetts v. EPA and overturn it.
Seems an excessively narrow focus. If CO2 is a “pollutant” that can be regulated in motor vehicles by EPA, as the Court seems to have ruled earlier, then of course that same pollutant can be regulated from stationary sources. EPA regulates both mobile and stationary sources now for emissions of particles, CO, NO2, etc., although the form of the regulations differs (e.g., mg/km driven for mobile sources vs. mg/kg burned from stationary sources). If the basic definition as a regulatable pollutant is allowed to stand, then it will be hard to argue that the pollutant is different somehow when emitted by stationary rather than mobile sources. Still, with the 5 conservatives there, they may be able to come up with a solution that will save the coal plants.
If I was crazy I would look at how Europe has been wrecking their economies with stupid decisions based on the nefarious AGW scheme and look at how Obama is trying to establish the similar economy wrecking mechanisms and wonder who is pulling the strings of these idiots to wreck the western world’s power. Maybe China has perfected a form of mind control or then again maybe some people are just stupid money and power grabbers.
I’m astonished. Glad I didn’t make any wagers against this, because at one point in the fairly recent past I recall I was confident enough to!
From several paragraphs in one amicus brief:
“Finally Massachusetts gives rise to a highly unorthodox consequence: climate change regulation on demand. One endangerment finding having been made, it is hard to see on the theory of EPA and the court below how EPA could decline to regulate in response to pending petitions for greenhouse gas controls from sea to shining sea. The construction of a nationwide regulatory system of unprecedented proportions ought to be left to Congress, not to an agency’s extra statutory, unguided improvisation. ”
Could not agree more.
elftone says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:49 am
I’d go one further and quote the politician (whose name I cannot remember) in saying that the reason is the way it will generate the largest revenue stream ever for government.
Probably true. Although its kinda like killing the goose to get all of the gold eggs at once. They probably think if the economy gets worse through the higher energy prices that will give them an excuse to spend more and with more poor the Democrats will be in power for ever.
Thirsty says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:55 am
SCOTUS should take a mulligan on Massachusetts v. EPA and overturn it.
————————————-
Unfortunately, the linked article specifically indicates they will not revisit Massachusetts v. EPA. No mulligans this time.
I’d like to think this had a chance of working. Seems like everywhere you look are people rabidly going down the green pathway and devil take the hindmost. Too many people out there without a clue as to what the climate data says or why we can’t have stored hydro power across the USA.
I’m afraid Lance Wallace has it right. The difficulty here is that the court routinely defers to the “expert agency” and won’t question the phony science, which is how Massachusetts v. EPA got decided in the agency’s favor. Unless five justices can find some way in which the agency exceeded its authority, its war on carbon will be allowed to proceed.
If C02 can be regulated as a ‘pollutant’, then the EPA would have would have power over people exhaling.
imo, regulating ‘pollution’ should be limited to particulates and gases which of not part of the planets life cycles
jorgekafkazar says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:55 am
Nine people stand between America and destruction of the Constitution. Who will not cave in, that’s the question.
AMEN! The only cap needed is over D.C.
Lance Wallace says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:58 am
Seems an excessively narrow focus. If CO2 is a “pollutant” that can be regulated in motor vehicles by EPA, as the Court seems to have ruled earlier, then of course that same pollutant can be regulated from stationary sources.>/i>
I think this is a misunderstanding of the previous ruling which was the EPA had the authority to regulate pollutants. SCOTUS stayed away from the argument of whether or not CO2 is a pollutant.
However, it is now apparent why there was so much pressure to have the AR5 SPM written (weasel worded) in the way that it was. There will now be indecent haste to remove the tabulated ‘extremely unlikely’s from the main body of the report.
Clearly, the EPA has jurisdiction over the Supreme Court justices.
Each of them is a “mobile source” of CO2.
Eventually, even judges won’t need reader glasses to see the widening gap between settled science and real observations. But they will need a calculator to tally up the outrageous cost of their recalcitrant decision to turn a blind eye on that gap.
There is precedence of such things eventually being turned around by case law.
A child with autism used to be removed from a mother’s care because the condition was universally thought to be brought on by cold mothering. That piece of “settled science” was eventually overturned. But not until untold thousands and maybe even tens of thousands of children and mothers were irreparably harmed by “settled science”.
Fast forward to today. These onerous CO2 regulations, wholly based on quite obvious to the naked eye faulty science, affect ALL of us! Staggering. Just staggering.
…N2 and O2 will be next…then the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide! If the logic is pursued, then the case should be made that anything exhausting should be taxed and regulated. It’s always ok, as long as it is taxed and regulated. Same stream of logic.
if only it were so – in reality conservative judges vote on the law as they understand it – but democrats vote on the party line as they follow it. Four of the nine votes are pre-determined and independent of law – so the judgement will be made by only five.
I would have preferred the EPA to be questioned on its findings that CO2 is a pollutant in the first place. They claim they have evidence – let’s see it. It’s amazing that no one can ever find that evidence.
If things don’t work out well for the executive orders over carbon dioxide mandate, they could move on to the issue of production of paper and books, water vapor, and electrons. The world is theirs for the taking and the natives just don’t know what lies ahead for them.
The case at hand is about the charter of the EPA when it was first created, and if this charter is violated by regulation of CO2 from stationary sources. Mobile sources such as autos are certainly in the charter. Stationary sources such as power plants are arguably not. “The justices limited their consideration of the new case to one question: whether EPA’s regulation of motor vehicle emissions triggers new permitting requirements for stationary sources as well, such as power plants. Opponents had mounted a broader challenge to all EPA regulations of greenhouse gases.” The cases have been combined off of Texas v. EPA http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2013/041913_texas_v_epa.pdf
Paul Murphy says:
October 15, 2013 at 11:33 am
jorgekafkazar says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:55 am
Nine people stand between America and destruction of the Constitution. Who will not cave in, that’s the question.
if only it were so – in reality conservative judges vote on the law as they understand it – but democrats vote on the party line as they follow it. Four of the nine votes are pre-determined and independent of law – so the judgement will be made by only five.
Is that why we have the obamacare?
I believe it may be called a tailoring rule. I’m not certain, offhand, but the EPA is required to regulate any ‘pollutant’ over a certain specified quantity. The Obama administration, in having the EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant, would be required by law (not to say they’ve respected that concept in the past) to regulate it far below what EPA is actually willing to. The EPA, under Obama, intended to only go after power plants and large scale industrial emitters by reinterpreting the tailoring rule, but by law, they’re required to go after much smaller sources such as schools, hospitals, even bakeries, if they’re willing to call out CO2 as a pollutant. Let’s see if the SCOTUS holds them to the letter of the law. They should because from a legal standpoint there’s technically no way around it. Then you’ll hear howls of protest from all its supporters when they too, face the absurdities of this administration.
“… N2 and O2 will be next…then the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide! ” — highflight
That’s silly. Everyone knows N2 is harmless. Now O2 is a far more serious pollutant than CO2. If we don’t do something about human driven gardening, the anthropogenic levels will increase until a simple spark can cause the entire atmosphere to combust at once.
The is settled science based on physics, easily verfied by anyone with access to a gas range. And even infamously responsible for the death of Gus Grissom and the rest of the Apollo 1 astronauts.