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.

5 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Nine old guys (and gals) by shark+swooner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Thirteenth Amendment by tepples · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
  3. Re:Nine old guys (and gals) by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. 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.

  5. Dissent by Dirck_the_Noorman · · Score: 5, Informative

    From Scalia's dissent: The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency. From Roberts' dissent: The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land...The mismatch suggests that petitioners' true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases--not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) ("[Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action")...The limitation of the judicial power to cases and controversies "is crucial in maintaining the tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution." http://tinyurl.com/yttruw