SCOTUS Says EPA Can Regulate Carbon
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.
...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.
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.