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.

Comments

Nine old guys (and gals)

[OakDragon]

What was it the abortion people used to say? What do nine old dudes in robes know about my body?

What do nine old farts (gender neutral term to keep up with the times) know about climate science? Apparently as much as Leonarda Dicaprio and John Travolta. Enough to be dangerous.

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[JeanPaulBob]

To my "IANAL" understanding, parents are certainly legally responsible to care and provide for their children, but children's responsibilities to their parents are somewhat...less than symmetrical.

Hmm. An amusing image just occurred to me, of parents suing their children for adversely affecting their financial well-being and causing stress and emotional turmoil...By the very fact of their existence.

It would be funnier if it were a bit further from being believable, though.

No change

[HomelessInLaJolla]

The Supreme Court is, as has been their policy for nearly 100 years, ignoring the greater question of jurisdiction while focusing on the lesser aspects.

Quote from the article's author:

I'm no legal scholar, but it sounds as if, by declaring that the EPA's case was weak, further defense of this matter (say in a future federal court case) would require either that the EPA come up with some compelling jurisdictional argument about why a substance in the atmosphere that could potentially harm humans isn't after all covered by the Clean Air Act I think the greater question is whether or not the Clean Air Act, or even the act which created the EPA, was Constitutional to begin with. The most direct example of this distinction can be found in a historical piece published by the NYTimes.

As Congress does not possess power itself to make onsetments relative to the persons or property of citizens of the United States, in a Federal Territory, other than such as the Constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally delegate any such powers to a Territorial Government, organized by it under the Constitution. Parallel, As Congress does not possess power itself to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, other than such as the Constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally delegate any such power to a federal authority such as the EPA, organized by it under the Constitution.

In 1857 the SCOTUS did the right thing, politically, by affirming that the Federal Government does not have sweeping jurisdiction over anything which can be remotely rationalized as commerce

The legal condition of a slave in the State of Missouri is not affected by the temporary sojourn of such slave in any other Sate, but on his return his condition still depends on the laws of Missouri.

As the plaintiff was not a citizen of Missouri, he, therefore, could not sue in the Courts of the United States. The suit must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If the transportation of a slave across state lines wasn't eligible for interstate commerce in 1857 then what has changed since then? A Constitutional Amendment was required, even a Civil War wasn't enough, for the slave trade to be considered "commerce". Where does the EPA derive its power from?

While it is a Good Thing that the slave population was officially outlawed (nevermind the gaping hole in the 13th Amendment which allows for a simple jaywalking ticket to make a person eligible for slavery), it is a Better Thing that our government be reminded, as often as possible, of the limitations on its power.

Re:No change

[debrain]

Because just like the GPL is the only thing that gives people the right to copy GPL software, the EPA and Clean Air Act and the like is the only thing that gives companies and people the right to poison each other with impunity.

The problem with the CAA and EPA is not their end, but their means. A positive result does not justify abuse of process. If the CAA and EPA have powers beyond what is legitimate, and they are nevertheless recognized, what stops the same branches of power (be it Congress or the Executive or the judiciary) from abusing this same extension of authority for malicious purposes? The division and separation of powers exists for the purpose of preventing this abuse so that process is democratic and representative, and it does so reasonably well when respected.

Respect for the environment is a totally separate issue from respect for the mechanisms that prevent abuse. If people are poisoning each other, there are valid non-abusive mechanisms to prevent that. If no such mechanism exists then, and only then, should the system be reformed. Thankfully the system in the US is sufficiently flexible that no such reform appears to be necessary, in the long run.

Re:Important side note

[schwit1]

"While the president had broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws." This would seem to say that bypassing FISA for searches or refusing to enforce immigration laws is illegal.

It's really "The Courts"

[Ungrounded Lightning]

How is this Your Rights Online?

It's really "The Courts". (Unfortunately that seems to be lumped into YRO.)

How is it News for "Nerds" ?

  - It's regulation of tech.
  - It's related to science.
  - It's going to require major technological innovation.
  - It's likely to drastically affect nerds' ability to use technology and/or energy.

Just for starters

Re:Insightfull? - Mods, please RTFA.

[ukemike]

It surprises me how a website full of otherwise apparently intelligent people can display such ignorance.

The Bush administration has consistently governed favoring crony-ism, special interests, and religious wackos, instead of science.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/6 2339

The Court told the EPA that they had to DO THEIR DAMN JOBS, regulate greenhouse gasses, or provide a reasonable explanation why they won't. You see for years in the face of overwhelming evidence they have simply failed to act in accordance with the law.

On the other big topic of debate here, whether this qualifies as "news for nerds," not all nerds are monomaniacally obsessed with computers. Some of us are interested in science, which is a study of how the real world works.

Re:Where are the primary sources?

[polar red]

So ... ONE BILLION PEOPLE driving cars and flying planes don't have an effect on CO2 levels ? Ok, you come back with "it's only a few percent of total emissions, if you also count volcanoes, emissions of animals and plants" I'll tell you this : The emissions of volcanoes, plants and animals have been taken care of by a billion year of evolution to balance emission/absorption of CO2. Now we're here and we screw the balance. What happens if you spend yearly 1% more than you earn ? In the long term ? Do the maths over 50 years for an income of 10000.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[scorp1us]

I expect to be modded down again for another dissenting opinion, but such is the case when there is no good science to settle the argument either way. The mob applies leverage and attempts science by consensus (History shows that consensus has almost always started out wrong to begin with).

I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle [google video] AND Inconvienent Truth.

I have to say, other than a nice graph of carbon dioxide and temperature, the rest of the film was science by consensus. "90% of scientists now agree". Furthermore, Al only makes the statement that "the relationship between the [two lines] is a complicated one". With that one line, he avoids the actual science of global warming. It allows him to gloss over any kind of investigation of solar activity, dissolved CO2 levels in the oceans, the ratio of CO2 to other green house gasses. Yes, there is more than one, but Al never mentions that. Instead he only shows the PPM increase, and not a percentage increase. He also fails to go into why the upper atmosphere is not increasing in temperature whereas ground temps are (hint: solar radiation heats the ground more effectively than green house gasses)

What we have, and everyone has to admit this, is the only real correlation is our ability to measure CO2 in PPM, and an increase in temperatures (at the same time an increase in solar activity). Anyone with statistics experience will tell you correlation is not causation. We simply have to wait for the many factors to fluctuate so we can tease out the real relationship.

I love the environment and animals (I was going to be a park ranger), but I call BS (Bad Science) when I see it. How embarrassing will it be in 50 years, when we've passed a local solar maximum and things are back to normal? Until our confidence [and understanding] is so high in the matter, we shouldn't be legislating first and asking questions later.