SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING and GOVERNMENT
Comment from Climate Science:
It looks as if the EPA is directed to "consider" eliminating the "variable" gases produced from human activity.
I’d encourage Climate Science readers to read the actual opinion and not the media coverage. It starts by citing US statute from the Clean Air Act.
Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as added by Pub. L. 89–272, §101(8), 79 Stat. 992, and as amended by, inter alia, 84 Stat. 1690 and 91 Stat. 791, 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1), provides:
“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare … .”7
The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” §7602(g). “Welfare” is also defined broadly: among other things, it includes “effects on … weather … and climate.” §7602(h). etc. etc. etc.
And concludes with (emphasis added):
EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984) . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.
Comment by N. Johnson — April 2, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
For those of you who are curious about the "natural" makeup of the atmosphere:
Yeah, but I'm not a lawyer. The court seems to be saying that the EPA can decide to either act or not. It just has to convince everyone that any inaction is justified by the Clean Air Act. Well, if the judges have decided that CO2 is a "pollutant", then there can be no "justification" for not acting, can there? Sounds like a "gotcha" to me. Talk about weasel wording!
Oh, one more thing. Are the judges going to do something about all of that CO2 and hot air they are exhaling? Maybe they will be doing more than that.
- Are natural gas, oil and coal-fired electric plants next? They produce more CO2 than automobiles.
- How about gas home furnaces, gas stoves, and gas hot water heaters? Most of us have a couple of these.
- Or do we just pick on automobiles? Why? Come on now, be logical. No, really, be logical.