Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases
UnknowingFool writes In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA on some limits to greenhouse gases but also upheld other limits. In a 5-4 partial decision, the high court ruled that EPA overstepped their authority in requiring permits only for greenhouse gases for new and modified facilities using the Clean Air act. Such regulatory action can only be granted by Congress. But in the same case on a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the EPA can enforce greenhouse gas limits on facilities that already require permits for other air pollutants. This leaves intact most of the new regulations proposed by the Obama administration earlier this month as many coal plants produce other air pollutants that can be regulated by the EPA.
The function of the executive agency is precisely to create and uphold rules. Most people think congressional laws detail out rules; this is mostly wrong. One clear example showing the difference between agency rules and laws is the American Disabilities Act of 1990. It's a very short law, but the executive agencies that enforce the laws have well over 100,000 pages of rules, none of which are defined verbatim in the law.
Congress's job is not to micromanage, it is to appropriate funds, enact legislation and oversee the executive during the life of the legislation.
Well then Congress shouldn't give them that power? That was the court's finding, that Congress had already authorized the EPA to regulate any gases produced at a plant that also produces named pollutants. So CO2 gets lumped in with the rest under their blanket authority over existing polluters. Which is why they struck down the ability to expand their authority to non-polluting entities. It was outside their existing jurisdiction.
Congress does that a lot, authorizes blanket authority, and then bitches when it gets exercised. It's like they don't read the bills they pass or something...
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
And, of course, that's got NOTHING to do with the fact that it's big businesses who are the ones fouling the global commons for their own selfish profit. Again.
It's just a coincidence that every law is anti-big business. Imagine all the business opportunities, if big business could just hire some gun men and force people out of their houses! Those pesky property laws are so totally anti-big business. It's so anti free market that the people with more and better guns shouldn't be able to expand their market share.
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms
That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.
Who ever gave you the idea that pollution must be toxic? Pollution = "a resource out of place". eg: don't pollute my scotch with water.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.