Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCOTUS Says EPA Can Regulate Carbon

Posted by kdawson on from the but-will-they? dept.

ThanatosMinor writes "In a 5-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, saying that the EPA's reasons for not doing so in the past were 'arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.' The ruling does not require the EPA to regulate carbon. But concerns about global climate change and its ties to human activity did appear to be deciding factors in the case." The AP coverage stresses that the ruling upholds the right of states to sue the Federal government over issues of global warming.

4 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. In a press conference afterwards... by bluemonq · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Carbon stated that the Supreme Court could "take a flying leap," insisting that SCOTUS should spend its time instead worrying about the dangers that Oxygen and Sodium present.

    1. Re:In a press conference afterwards... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      He then proceeded to give a tipoff about what Oxygen was doing around the corner with those two Hydrogen fellers....

            And then laughed and laughed, because everyone knows that Carbon can take 4 at a time...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  2. George, you let us down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    We feel deeply betrayed. We thought SCOTUS was made up of your, and our, friends. Up til now you've had the support of Republicans controlling both houses. Surely you could have stacked the court with some more compliant judges. George, we are bitterly disappointed.

    Your deeply distressed friends,
    The Oil Industry

  3. Waiting to Exhale... by 1zenerdiode · · Score: 5, Funny

    Holding: Carbon dioxide is a pollutant...emissions can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
    Perverse Outcome: Administrative rules could make it illegal to breathe.
    Alternative Constitutional Theory to Challenge the Ruling: Tension between First Amendment and Commerce Authority since it is necessary to breathe in order to speak freely.

    Alternatively, massive new entitlement programs may be funded by requiring the purchase of respiratory carbon credits.

    Next year: Increasing the entropy of the surroundings will constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act. Do your part to limit your entropy footprint.