Carbon Dioxide
Interesting, who is one what side. Reminds me of a group of important people who said taking Iraq would be "shock and awe." I'm curious to know how well passing a law that says we aren't in global warming will affect global warming.
Supreme Court takes up issue of carbon dioxide emissions
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) - The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is defending its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new motor vehicles in the first case about global warming to reach the Supreme Court.
The Environmental Protection Agency lacks the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, the administration said in court papers. Even if it had such authority, the EPA still would not use it at this point because of uncertainty surrounding the issue of global warming, the administration said.
Global climate change is "a controversial phenomenon that is far from fully understood or defined," trade associations for car and truck makers and automobile dealers said in a court filing signed by former Solicitors General Theodore Olson and Kenneth Starr that backs the administration position.
Twelve states, mainly along the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as three cities, a U.S. territory and 13 environmental groups are arguing that the EPA ignored the clear language of the Clean Air Act. Under the 1970 law, carbon dioxide is an air pollutant that threatens public health and the EPA must regulate it, they said.
The case is scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning.
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, are burned. It is the principal "greenhouse" gas that many scientists believe is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, leading to a warming of the Earth and widespread ecological changes. One way to reduce those emissions is to have cleaner-burning cars.
"There are compelling reasons for the court to join the issue now," Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly said in a brief on behalf of the states, cities and environmental groups.
A federal appeals court in Washington, in a fractured decision in 2005, upheld the administration's position. The Supreme Court decided to take the case in June and is expected to rule before July 2007.
The court's decision could have far-reaching effects. A separate case involving the EPA's claim that the Clean Air Act similarly does not give it authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants also is making its way through the federal courts.
Together, U.S. power plants and vehicles account for 15 percent of the world output of greenhouse gases, said David Doniger, counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group involved in the Supreme Court case.
An association of electric utilities, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, opposes greenhouse gas regulation. But two individual power companies, Calpine Corp. and Entergy Corp., are on the other side.
"This case makes for strange bedfellows," Entergy said in its brief. The company said it has to be able to make plans 25 years in advance, and that the EPA's current rules will not "stand the test of time."
Michigan, home of the U.S. auto industry, and eight other states are backing the EPA.
Supreme Court takes up issue of carbon dioxide emissions
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) - The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is defending its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new motor vehicles in the first case about global warming to reach the Supreme Court.
The Environmental Protection Agency lacks the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, the administration said in court papers. Even if it had such authority, the EPA still would not use it at this point because of uncertainty surrounding the issue of global warming, the administration said.
Global climate change is "a controversial phenomenon that is far from fully understood or defined," trade associations for car and truck makers and automobile dealers said in a court filing signed by former Solicitors General Theodore Olson and Kenneth Starr that backs the administration position.
Twelve states, mainly along the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as three cities, a U.S. territory and 13 environmental groups are arguing that the EPA ignored the clear language of the Clean Air Act. Under the 1970 law, carbon dioxide is an air pollutant that threatens public health and the EPA must regulate it, they said.
The case is scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning.
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, are burned. It is the principal "greenhouse" gas that many scientists believe is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, leading to a warming of the Earth and widespread ecological changes. One way to reduce those emissions is to have cleaner-burning cars.
"There are compelling reasons for the court to join the issue now," Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly said in a brief on behalf of the states, cities and environmental groups.
A federal appeals court in Washington, in a fractured decision in 2005, upheld the administration's position. The Supreme Court decided to take the case in June and is expected to rule before July 2007.
The court's decision could have far-reaching effects. A separate case involving the EPA's claim that the Clean Air Act similarly does not give it authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants also is making its way through the federal courts.
Together, U.S. power plants and vehicles account for 15 percent of the world output of greenhouse gases, said David Doniger, counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group involved in the Supreme Court case.
An association of electric utilities, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, opposes greenhouse gas regulation. But two individual power companies, Calpine Corp. and Entergy Corp., are on the other side.
"This case makes for strange bedfellows," Entergy said in its brief. The company said it has to be able to make plans 25 years in advance, and that the EPA's current rules will not "stand the test of time."
Michigan, home of the U.S. auto industry, and eight other states are backing the EPA.
posted by John | 6:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home