A group of state officials and environmentalists take the EPA to the supreme court this week, charging that the current data around climate change and CO2 emissions requires the federal agency to get involved.
And why not? It’s the Environmental Protection Agency! In one of the most obvious cases of protecting the environment (not to mention ourselves) the EPA is refusing to weigh in due to “too many unresolved questions about the causes and effects of global warming.”
The dispute arrives on the desks of the Supreme Court justices today.
Here’s why its a big deal and could be a watershed ruling:
1. It will test the authority of state agencies and interest groups in their ability to sue federal agencies to push them to adopt specific regulatory policies.
2. It could empower states by establishing legal precedents for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions without the blessing of the federal government. With the recent move by 10 states throwing emissions control back in the face of the Feds (after it was gutted 4 years ago), this brings up classic arguments around Federalism and state’s rights.
Lastly…
On a broader level, the case raises questions about the role of the judiciary in resolving litigation over regulatory policy arguments. Should judges defer to controversial decisions made by administrative agencies on whether or when to pass regulations? Or should judges aggressively enforce what they see as the underlying purpose of statutes that govern agencies?
It seems the EPA is passing the buck here, saying they don’t have the ability to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, the Clean Air Act clearly enables the EPA to take action to reduce the chemicals that cause air pollution (including methane, CO2, NOx and hydroflurocarbons).
Now, in their defense I should say that the EPA has been stripped of all abilities since the inception of the Bush Administration. I car-pooled with a gentlemen that had worked for the EPA in San Francisco for over 17 years and he said they have no work because they don’t have the ability to prosecute after Bush stripped down regulatory laws. “Literally, we have people wandering around the office. There isn’t the same sense of urgency anymore. I haven’t felt this useless in my 17 years at the EPA.” Ouch.
If judges were asked to essentially regulate emissions on behalf of a slacking federal agency, what good are the agencies that we’ve appointed? On the other hand, who will be the backup for agencies that are slacking or have become useless.
Twitter Updates
it is time to control the emissions of co2.
time to take on the responsibility to clean up the enviroment .
Dear Judge, The EPA can not regulate,when it`s only purpose is to set standard`s for internal combustion engine`s. The auto industry openly admit`s that it does not have the technologie`s that are acceptable to the consumer`s standard`s. People do not want internal combustion engine`s,they want a planet to live on. Let the consumer`s have voice as to acceptable technologie`s and you may have a chance of saving it yet.
How long do we expect these hearings to last? I really, really hope we score on this.
I ask of you to please aid us in a healthier environment. We are concerned citizens with a true love for clean air, clean water and healthy long lives. This planet if given an opportunity can be filled with wildlife, abdundant foliage, and a human population that can adapt and thrive on new sources of energy.
Concerned Citizen,
Beth M. Murray BS, RDCS
We can change the distruction. Please lower our CO2 emissions NOW by restricting Autos and other fossil fuel burning industries. It is a moral issue.