Why does the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) always seem to try and get out of actually protecting the environment?
The latest: The EPA sez it’s not responsible for regulating greenhouse gases, arguing that the Clean Air Act wasn’t intended as “a massive greenhouse-gas control program,” to quote Newsweek’s report.
Of course, lotsa people — including not just eco-activists but 18 states and many cities — and even energy companies including Entergy and Calpine — disagree.
Thus, a new lawsuit, Massachusetts v. EPA, is headed for the US Supreme Court.
And the decisions made’re expected to have huge repercussions! Sez David Bookbinder, senior attorney for the Sierra Club, to Newsweek: “The court will decide two questions. Does the Clean Air Act give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases? If it gives EPA that authority, can EPA avoid exercising that authority simply because it doesn’t want to?”
Ok — So why’s this so important? Well — The specific greenhouse gas emitter in question with this case is motor vehicles. And, in Cali and like 10 other states, the state has passed laws regulating vehicle emissions.
So if the court rules that the EPA’s not authorized to regulate vehicle emissions, then arguably, Cali and other states aren’t allowed to regulate either.
David Bookbinder sez the language of the Clean Air Act’s very clear — That anything emitted into the air that endangers health and welfare or has adverse effects on the weather and climate should be regulated. He sez he thinks that the EPA’s trying to shun its duties due to the influence of the Bush administration.
Read the whole history of what’s happened with this lawsuit so far. The US Supreme Court’s expected to hear arguments in December.
Update, 9/8/06: Here’s Sierra Club’s press release regarding this issue.
Update, 4/3/07: Yes, CO2′s an environmental issue, says the Supreme Court. “The court rebuked the Bush administration and ruled that so-called greenhouse gases — like carbon dioxide — are air pollutants subject to federal regulation.”
Now that’s strange legal reasoning. The EPA is free to make the argument they have no legal authority because they are not legislating themselves. Congress has *delegated* some responsibility to the EPA, and EPA argues about the scope of that delegation.
California (or, to be exact, the assembly) *is* the legislative, however. They are free to regulate anything they see fit. I’d really like to hear the reason why the EPA decision cuts into Californias legislative authority…
It *might* affect Californias influence on car emissions, since that’s technically interstate commerce. However, it might very well be possible for them to regulate sales inside California.
Frankly – we (California) are the 5th largest economy in the world. Can’t we just ditch that third world banana republic formerly known as the United States? ;)
Comment by Robert 'Groby' Blum — September 4, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
Yes — The way it would affect Cali is just with the car emmission stuff, cuz Cali’s car regulation laws are drawn from the Clean Air Act, which is what’s under debate with the Mass. v EPA case.
But yes — I’m all for Cali secession! :P Once we get the Governator out, that is. I don’t really want him for prez. I mean, not that I want Bush for prez either…
Comment by Siel — September 4, 2006 @ 3:03 pm