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

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[shark swooner]

RTFA:

Note that the supreme court dodged a bullet by not basing their decision on the question of the validity of anthopogenic global warming. As the New York Times reported:

In sending the case back for further proceedings, Stevens said the high court did not decide which policy the EPA must follow. "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute," he wrote.

Wow, this article is silly

[Talgrath]

So...the author of the article linked says he hasn't seen a breakdown of who voted what...but the New York Times article that he linked to gave him the breakdown. Somebody hasn't been reading their sources.

Re:YRO?

[CastrTroy]

The online part is that this is slashdot, and you're reading about your right while online. At least that's always the way I've interpreted it since it seems that about 50% of the stories have nothing to do with our rights on the internet.

Re:No change

[Qzukk]

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.

You're absolutely right. We should abolish the Clean Air Act, then all the other environmental regulations and finally the EPA and then start arresting factory workers and operators for assault by poisoning.

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. Maybe when the corporate leaders have to face jail time for poisoning (or even manslaughter) they'll stop crying and sobbing about how hard it is to only give cancer to one in a million people (along with the other 999,999 companies). Don't tell me poison is the cost of progress, either, unless the corporate executives are offering to pay the price themselves instead of forcing it on everyone else.

Thirteenth Amendment

[tepples]

As Congress does not possess power itself to regulate carbon dioxide emissions Even when carbon dioxide emissions in one state interfere with the ability of another state to conduct commerce?

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) The loophole in this constitutional amendment is there to allow for forced labor for felons serving time in prison. Any slave camp established by the government would be considered a de facto prison, and there's still a ban on cruel and unusual punishments such as long prison terms for minor misdemeanors. Have you any evidence that the amendment has been applied in some other manner?

Important side note

[lelitsch]

I wonder how much the administration realized the unintended consequences of including a "laundry list" of reasons why they should not regulate emissions. Now they have a sentence like this in a SCOTUS decision:

"While the president had broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."

This might so come back to haunt them as precedent.

Bodes poorly for U.S. oil imperialism

[michaelmalak]

This decision bodes poorly for the U.S. in regards to the Big Climate Lawsuit, whereby Boulder is suing two U.S. government agencies over global warming drying up Boulder's water reservoirs. Three California cities have since joined the lawsuit.

The two agencies, the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, are a form of corporate welfare to Big Oil. When Big Oil wants to destroy the environment in a third world country, banks shy away due to political instability. In steps the U.S. government to provide taxpayer-guaranteed loans.

The lawsuit is over the narrow issue of that these agencies did not do environmental impact studies in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Now that the Supreme Court has already ruled that carbon dioxide may be classified as a pollutant, the district court that is deciding the Big Climate Lawsuit must follow precedence.

I would rather have seen OPIC and Ex-Im dismantled over the fundamental reasons they are wrong: unconstitutional, corporate welfare, exploitation of third world countries, and destruction of the environment directly attributable to oil drilling and transport. But as is usually the case, the strongest legal case does not necessarily correlate to the strongest moral/ethical case.

Re:No change

[Comatose51]

Well, if you believe what most economists believe, which is things like pollution is considered externality and the cost of production, then air pollution would fall under commerce. This is especially true considering the fact that you can trade carbon credits and can actually monetize carbon or the lack of carbon emission.

Direct Impact of CO2 itself?

[Guppy]

Something I've been wondering, being a biologist, is the direct impact on humans of the higher levels of CO2 itself (as opposed to indirect effects such as climate shifts).

Interestingly enough, humans don't have any way to sense the oxygen concentration in air. The air in a nitrogen filled room can feel perfectly fresh right up to the point where you get dizzy and pass out. Instead, we sense CO2 concentrations -- a room with normal levels of O2 but several percent CO2 will be distinctly unpleasant to breath. At about 1000ppm CO2 a room may start to feel stuffy.

I've heard of some projections () of 650-970 ppm CO2 by 2100. The change over time will certainly be too slow for anyone to notice, but I find it remarkable that we may be heading to the point where outdoor air will be as high in CO2 as what we now consider stale.

Where are the primary sources?

[Dan Ost]

That video claims that CO2 trends follow temperature trends by 800 years, indicating that rises in CO2 are caused by raised temperatures, not the other way around.

I've heard this before, but never from a primary source. Can anyone direct me to the studies that support/refute this conclusion?

Right now all I have to go on is 2 videos (Gore's the Swindle video). I don't particularly trust either.