Skip to comments.Supreme Court Climate Case Looks at EPA's Power (global warming)
Posted on 02/23/2014 12:04:38 PM PST by Libloather
Industry groups and Republican-led states are heading an attack at the Supreme Court against the Obama administration's sole means of trying to limit power-plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.
As President Barack Obama pledges to act on environmental and other matters when Congress doesn't, or won't, opponents of regulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases cast the rule as a power grab of historic proportions.
The court is hearing arguments Monday about a small but important piece of the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to cut the emissions a requirement that companies expanding industrial facilities or building new ones that would increase overall pollution must also evaluate ways to reduce the carbon they release.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Can I make an observation?
We’re told by the liberals that CO2 is a pollutant, etc.
Well, each of us produces CO2 every time we exhale.
What are the implications for us having to reduce our carbon footprint as individuals? We’re all CO2 factories.
Some CO2 factories are better than others.
When the EPA was set up during the Nixon administration, wasn’t the House supposed to have oversight, not the executive branch?
Um, I’m kinda thinkin’ the libs, for the good of mankind which they care so deeply about, should volunteer to, uh, “cease” creating this noxious gas. After all, it would be for the children.
Since the SC already ruled that CO2 could be regulated I don’t see how they rule against the EPA.
I believe the regime is taking the approach that we’ll do what we want, until some court decision (maybe) slows us down.
At 317 million, we should all be wearing some sort of mask to filter our exhaled breath. Don’t forget that EPA banned asthma inhalers for the few million folks who used them a few times per day.
Democrats don’t fart, and if they do, it doesn’t stink..
That’s why they’re so uptight about everything
No, the Supreme Ct, in the 2007 case said that CO2 was a pollutant.
As for what you exhale, the issue here is about EPA regulating stationary sources(power plant, steel mill, cement kiln) at about 100,000 tons per year.
I sat my kids down and explained that carbon is not a poison, it is in stars and space and a building block of life. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - without it, plants will die. So shut up on global warming and carbon pollution.
The argument is that SCOTUS specifically mentioned auto tailpipes(a mobil source), but SCOTUS didn't mention stationary sources.
EPA says CO2 is CO2, whether it comes out of a tailpipe or power plant exhaust stack. And, SCOTUS didn't specifically exclude stationary sources in their 2007 decision.
“When the EPA was set up during the Nixon administration, wasnt the House supposed to have oversight, not the executive branch?”
The RINO expansion of G’ment tyranny goes back a few years, generations even. Teddy Roosevelt come to mind, he may or may not be one of the first RINOs
I don’t see how they can differentiate between the two since they’ve already accepted that CO2 is a pollution source from whatever source but we shall see.
Of all 3 issues in which the DC Ct ruled for EPA, this is the only one that SCOTUS agreed to hear on appeal. They rejected the other 2.
Chief Justice Roberts: It seems to me that only Congress has the power to do this.
Justice Ginsburg: Remember, I have copies of those adoption papers in a secure location.
Chief Justice Roberts: Oh, well, maybe the administration is acting within the law . . .
Then there is beer and cokes and Jack Black and wine.
All are emitters of CO2
Before turning off the a/c or the lights perhaps we should outlaw all carbonated and fermented beverages
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the suns planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
The implications are simple and horrifying, indeed the very reason why the left so loves AGW “science.” Every activity by every animal in the world, including all humans, involves and requires the use and/or the movement of carbon and the concomitant emission of carbon dioxide. Hence, those who control human use of carbon control every human activity and have an absolute license to adopt worldwide, unappealable central planning, a communist’s absolute perpetual wet dream since the days of Marx. Absolute power is what matters to them. The deaths of tens of millions of people that inevitably accompany central planning, as under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, matter not a bit to communists like the Mahdi and Moochelle, both of whom bitterly hate America and Americans.
That's where our real solution is. If we can just cut our population in half, like rid ourselves of those stupid Democrats, we can cut our generation of the CO2 in half and solve a lot of other problems at the same time.
Look for the EPA to make that a hate crime before it's over.
The Supreme Court considered nine petitions seeking review of the appeals courts decision on many grounds, and it accepted six of them. But it limited the issue it would consider to whether the agency permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouses gases. Among the cases accepted for review was Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 12-1146.
The question was narrow, and it appeared spurred by Judge Kavanaughs dissent. Environmental groups said they were pleased that the court had not questioned the agencys finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger, or that it can regulate tailpipe emissions. They added that the agency has other tools to regulate stationary sources should it lose in the pending case.
From this article:
As Obama Vows to Act on Climate Change, Justices Weigh His Approach
Earlier in the article:
When the full appeals court declined to rehear the case, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented, and he identified the ground that would turn out to interest the Supreme Court. He said the agency had gone astray in revising the text of the statute.
The task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important, Judge Kavanaugh wrote, but it is primarily one for Congress to address. The framers of the Constitution, he added, did not grant the executive branch the authority to set economic and social policy as it sees fit.
Being that it is urgent and important, Congress not addressing the task is not an option. That was the basis of the original lawsuit.
And EPA certainly deferred to Congress when they said that they would "stay out of the way of Congress". EPA would set their regulatory thresholds at a higher level than the regulatory thresholds that Congress was considering.
In 2009 EPA set their regulatory thresholds at 25,000 tons per year because that was less stringent than the House Cap and Trade Bill.
The House bill fell through and in 2010 an attempt was made in the Senate to pass a narrower an less stringent bill and EPA revised their regulatory threshold up to the 75,000-100,000 tons to "stay out of the way of the Senate"
People need to understsnd that if and when Congress were to pass carbon legislation, it would be more stringent than what EPA is proposing.
thanks for the input.
It will be interesting to see the ruling - perhaps in June.
I may have put too much emphasis in the following statement by Kavanaugh:
The framers of the Constitution, he added, did not grant the executive branch the authority to set economic and social policy as it sees fit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.